the male alpha problem in math and the sciences
galathaea
i have regularly found
that men tend to disbelieve me
if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
when i was younger
i was often ashamed by their accusations
and would keep quiet after any "incident" where i was ridiculed
later
as i learned more and often found more credence in whatever it was
discussed
i realised my initial reactions were not constructive
and i needed to be more forceful about what i knew
the way men and women handle such situations is very different
and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
that keeps women out of math and sciences
the problem with these fields
in opposition to others
is that there seems to be some tradition of certainty here
math is considered true absolutely by a large segment of practitoners
( in whatever definition of truth they have rationalised )
science is considered to reveal the truth of nature
whether foundationally justified or not
these fields seem to attract the type that seek certainty
so when something is presented outside their knowledge
when they are confronted with a different approach or view
they regularly and immediately assume it is invalid
i have seen this regularly in my life
and it seems to have an added twist for women
for women
the assumption of wrongness seems accompanied with a
" she's alright, she's just a little confused, i'll come and correct
her "
attitude
almost an embarassment followed by rescuer fantasy
and then when source material is presented to provide a foundation for
the claims
others who may be aware of some of the source come in
_and_will_try_to_mediate_by_supporting_the_male_attacks_!
" well she's got some points here
but she's still wrong xyz "
and i find i haven't made any progress because the points are then
ignored
and the original assertion must still be defended
grigory perelman took exception to this behavior
by his peers in russia
who often mocked him for believing (correctly) to have proven
poincare's conjecture
but of course the prototypical example is rosalind franklin
whose ideas were mocked
whose appearance was mocked
by watson and crick after stealing her data and claiming her results
on the structure of DNA
do other women in these fields find the same behavior?
did it almost turn you away from the fields?
i've had professors tell me i was mistaken for thinking there was such
a thing as
noncommutative geometry
( " all spaces have commutative function spaces! " )
mocked for considering bohmian mechanics by a physics professor
who would regularly show me the new advances they were making
in extending aspect's results
berated for suggesting quantum logic solutions to homework problems
once
when i mentioned to an ex professor
that i had hypergeometric results which might be new
the professor told me
" I am sure you have worked hard on your little theorem. But the
literature
is vast, and even on the off chance you haven't any obvious
errors, the
result is probably known. You should find a professor doing
original
research and they can help you get started if that's what you
want. "
this was a professor who
was the putnam coach the year i scored highest in my state
worked in combinatorial sums and could easily have understood
refused to even look at my work
lately on these newgroups
steve carlip
whom i had always thought provided well-thought out responses
wrote:
" If you want to work on Bohmian mechanics as a program that
*might* eventually lead to a deterministic alternative to QFT,
that's fine (though be careful of your citations -- a number of
the QFT models you've referred to are explicitly *not*
deterministic).
But don't confuse your hopes with what has actually been shown
to be possible. "
did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
of course not
like most posters in the thread
he only started reading the literature after i posted links to it
and his negativity carried the assumption that i
_who_had_posted_the_links_and_responses_that_introduced_him_to_it_
had no clue what i was talking about
i've been called crazy
because i discussed artemov's logic of proofs
as a resolution to the bhk semantics of constructivism
by people who had not read the papers
do other women find they continually have to justify themselves to
men?
is this a truly sexually dimorphic problem?
or am i not able to generalise this because of "special" circumstances
in my cases?
i am just wondering how others deal with this
( the guys can answer too
if they promise to take a shower and brush their teeth )
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
galathaea
also i notice they never seem to apologise
i find myself apologising a lot
when i make the embarrassing mistakes i regularly do
but get hurt that men rarely know how
Hero
> i have ....
> that men.... me
> if i .....
> when i was younger
> i was ....
> later
> as i learned more ...
> i realised ....
> and i needed to be more forceful about what i knew
>
> the way men and women handle such situations is very different
> and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
> that keeps women out of math and sciences
>
............
>
> i have seen this regularly in my life
> and it seems to have an added twist for women
>
.....
>
> i've had professors tell me i was mistaken .....
>
> once
> when i mentioned to an ex professor
> that i had hypergeometric results which might be new
......
> ..the year i scored highest in my state
.....
> after i posted links to it
> and his negativity carried the assumption that i
> _who_had_posted_the_links_and_responses_that_introduced_him_to_it_
> had no clue what i was talking about
>
> i've been called crazy
> because i discussed artemov's logic
......
>
> i am just wondering how others deal with this
>
No problem in sci.math.
Post under the name of galathus or John B.C.
( and try not to be too much concerned about Yourself, as this seems
to betray
Your female logic - that's what i rampaged Your text for)
With friendly greetings
Hero
(actually You can't see it, but i'm a nigger
and no longer interested in Your all-american-revolver-manifestations)
galathaea
i should change my name
and pretend to be a guy?
Rick Decker
> i have regularly found
> that men tend to disbelieve me
> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
<snip>
Regards,
Rick
galathaea
i should change my name
and pretend to be a guy?
i'm sorry you were upset by my provocation
i don't ask you to be interested
but it is immoral for a mathematician to oppose language change
and unprofessional for them
as language change is their profession
the cowards on sci.math were upset at IM speak
its the same blatant racism
that caused the city i live in
to pass a law last year against doing business in spanish
it was wrong
and i will continue to speak out against it
somebody needs to have balls
Alie...@gmail.com
> that men tend to disbelieve me
> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
(brevity snip)
> i've been called crazy
> because i discussed artemov's logic of proofs
> as a resolution to the bhk semantics of constructivism
> by people who had not read the papers
I have absolutely no idea what that is. Something new to learn!
> do other women find they continually have to justify themselves to
> men?
> is this a truly sexually dimorphic problem?
IMO associating the adversarial and cooperative mindsets with sexual
dimorphism is a mistake; they don't always correlate directly. There
does seem to have been some strong social selection pressure applied
as long as we've been "human" but it obviously hasn't worked or women
who are naturally adversarial wouldn't still regularly get called
'dykes' and naturally cooperative men wouldn't get called 'pussies'.
But consider what kind of person (not just men) does that sort of
name-calling. ;>)
Basically ISTM all this hoopla about alphas and betas is misapplied;
we see that sort of difference in many mammals and assume it applies
to us, but remember that alone among higher mammals humans do not go
into estrus; we have no evolutionary need to have either gender be "in
charge" all the time. I'm about three-quarters convinced that the
apparent statistical male-adversarial/female-cooperative correlation
we do see is a genetic holdover from when we did go into estrus.
> or am i not able to generalise this because of "special" circumstances
> in my cases?
Yes, you are not a naturally adversarial person.
> i am just wondering how others deal with this
Well, as a naturally cooperative man I learned that the adversarial
mindset is not actually at its root hostile; it's a weird mixture of
competitiveness and cooperation. An adversarial person _needs_ someone
to argue vehemently with in order to get the subject of discussion
sorted out. If you take the time to learn the rules (there are rules)
and apply them you can not only hold your own but find yourself being
sought out by them because they know you can help them.
I have a nice story about simultaneously embarassing a member of a
"jock clan" and getting their group respect if you'd like to hear it.
IME the largest obstacle either type faces is getting a handle on
their emotional responses. When someone gets in your face you
naturally respond with fear because that's what cooperatives do; fear
non-cooperation. Our hindbrains think "I must be doing something
wrong, I can't get them to cooperate" so we reflexively back down to
inspire what we think is proper behavior but the adversarial's is
thinking "I must be doing something wrong, I can't get them to put up
a fight" so they reflexively push harder to inspire what they think is
proper behavior.
I know several professional women who start meetings saying things
like "Look, if I start crying ignore it; it's simply my emotions doing
their thing and I won't let it interfere with my thinking processes,
so don't let it interfere with yours". That sorta works because most
men are wetwired to stop thinking and start protecting when they see a
woman crying _whether or not the woman actually needs it_. Making them
realize it while it's happening does seem to help them retain
objectivity in professional settings.
It isn't easy though; adversarials are not naturally good at
introspection, and cooperatives aren't good at whatever its opposite
might be called. If one can't do it the other must do it for them, or
just walk away.
Look at it this way; your mind is your primary tool, and it's to
your benefit to know as much as you can not only about how it works
but how it can be "McGyvered" without breaking anything. It's also to
your benefit to understand how others' minds work for the same
reasons. Consider the possible utility of emulating adversarialism on
your cooperative wetware...
> ( the guys can answer too
> if they promise to take a shower and brush their teeth )
Did you shave your legs and armpits before posting? Fair's fair.
Mark L. Fergerson
PS About the Carlip thing; ISTM that's a generic warning not to let
one's belief system override one's objectivity.
Jesse F. Hughes
> galathaea wrote:
>> i have regularly found
>> that men tend to disbelieve me
>> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>>
> I doubt that.
Not me. I am very familiar with the fact that galathaea makes dubious
claims. Consequently, I believe them.
--
"I am a force of Nature. Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about
things, here and there. And sometimes We muse a bit [...] and then We
watch them go... in the meantime, Time and I, We play with some of
them, at least for a little while." --- JSH and His pal, Time.
Nomal Sapeton
"galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176320525.2...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
<snip sexual bigot crap>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
>
galathaea, you used the word "i" 27 times, you have NPD, google for it, and
get help.
Tonico
> Rick Decker <rdec...@hamilton.edu> writes:
> > galathaea wrote:
> >> i have regularly found
> >> that men tend to disbelieve me
> >> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
> > I doubt that.
>
> Not me. I am very familiar with the fact that galathaea makes dubious
> claims. Consequently, I believe them.
Correction (if you please): she makes dubious, twisted, very weird,
terribly written and dismayingly long dubious facts.
I stopped reading her posts long ago, but I must admit that the alpha
male stuff caught my attention. Nothing better, at least for her,
apparently, than claiming some kind of rather odd sexist stuff in
science in order to justify her own failures. If you can mix this with
claims of having opposed a rather stupid law about languages in which
people can deal in their own businesses then better than better.
Regards
Tonio
Nomal Sapeton
you are already pretending to be a girl, with narcissistic personality
disorder
Red
fact that most primary school teachers are women,
and their teaching style is tailored to the female
i.e, girls' traits , often against male traits and
needs:
In high school and preschool, one is expected
to sit quietly, often for hours. This is better
suited to girls' natural way of being than to
most boys' ways of being. Boys (including myself
at that point) are more physical, and need to
talk, experiment, just move around . It was
impossible for me, as
well as for other males to stay quiet and fixed
in place for hours at a time. It came naturally to
most girls. The prof's (a female) response to
my and other boys' fidgeting and nervousness :
downright public abuse and mockery. If I
saw her again, I would give her a piece of my
mind.
(And all this happened at a time where there _was_
research -- and not the obscure type, but the type
that was available in your intro. psych book--
of how boys and girls had different learning
methods and how boys are more physical than girls,
etc.)
The sad fact is that, in a more general note,
I do not believe it is a male-female issue, but
more of a power-powerless issue: those who have
power tend to want to have things done their
respective ways, quashing and attacking everyone
who does not go along (tho, of course, not in
overt, and possibly not even conscious, ways).
Very few in power escape
this pull, this tendency, in my experience.
Hero
>
> it was wrong
> and i will continue to speak out against it
>
> somebody needs to have balls
>
Galathaea concieves herself.
With friendly greetings
Hero
boson boss
> i have regularly found
> that men tend to disbelieve me
> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
> when i was younger
> i was often ashamed by their accusations
> and would keep quiet after any "incident" where i was ridiculed
>
I understand and you're right. I know this by reacting from a flushing-
cheek perspective, but also by sensing different mind operations
within a dynamics. The objective world in my opinion is processed
differently and reasoning is sound, but maybe not of same sound :-))
Also, I think some statistics hit women as they are already placed to
receive their "place". Oh dear... I won't delete it.
> later
> as i learned more and often found more credence in whatever it was
> discussed
> i realised my initial reactions were not constructive
> and i needed to be more forceful about what i knew
Well, right. You have to emanate some influence. Only in general,
since this is communication etc, I'd not put it like going against a
Mass. It would be already a specific drama instead of whole spectrum.
> the way men and women handle such situations is very different
> and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
> that keeps women out of math and sciences
Plenty of women in math college you know? They usually get to be
persistent perhaps. I don't know. I advise a rule: never deal with
social issues, problems, truths. Everyone ho dealt with social issues
at large fell. Do the concrete problem locally and answer that
question. Use a shotgun and advise others not to do the same. :-))
> the problem with these fields
> in opposition to others
> is that there seems to be some tradition of certainty here
>
> math is considered true absolutely by a large segment of practitoners
> ( in whatever definition of truth they have rationalised )
> science is considered to reveal the truth of nature
Well, not if the lectures are good enough. Instead you have nature to
speak beautiful things to you.
> whether foundationally justified or not
> these fields seem to attract the type that seek certainty
I dunno. Argumentative. Can you compare the titles between, say,
"Cosmology" and "Management of small bullshitting peanut company"? Its
about beauty no?
> so when something is presented outside their knowledge
> when they are confronted with a different approach or view
> they regularly and immediately assume it is invalid
All the time. They are uneducated, its an unsupported function.
For men, use fluids in the head over the top to switch inner world
into another mind.
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <1176374370.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"boson boss" <junk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 9:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i have regularly found
>> that men tend to disbelieve me
>> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
Suggestion: work on your writing skills.
<snip>
>> i have seen this regularly in my life
>> and it seems to have an added twist for women
Then you haven't observed with objectivity. Males
are treated a lot worse.
<snip>
>> do other women in these fields find the same behavior?
Yes. But my treatment was from other females. I didn't have
much problem with most males. The few males I had problems
with had other issues.
>> did it almost turn you away from the fields?
Why would I let stupid people herd me away from the work
I had to do?
<snip>
>> did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
<snip>
Instead of bitching, go do the work. You are trying to play the
"poor me, I'm getting picked on--please rescue me" games. That
gets attention in today's elhi schools but doesn't get any
productive work done. It's considered cute behaviour when you're
a child; it is annoying when you're in college. It is behaviour
that will cause you to be ignored when you're an adult.
/BAH
/BAH
Randy Poe
Actually it had not occurred to me until this thread that
you weren't. Or rather, that you had any particular
gender. I would never try to guess gender from Usenet
name.
- Randy
galathaea
> [piggybacking post]
> >On Apr 11, 9:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> i have regularly found
> >> that men tend to disbelieve me
> >> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
> >> and it seems to have an added twist for women
>
> Then you haven't observed with objectivity. Males
> are treated a lot worse.
i did not intend to suggest
that men do not do this amongst each other
usenet is filled with
idiot
stoopid
ignoramous
and other one line retorts amounting to immediate disbelief
i mentioned perelman
particularly because i wanted to stress
that i recognised its impact on men
the "added twist" i mentioned
was that there is often
perhaps in my experience only
a tendency to replace the direct aggression
with a more compassionate dismissal
>
> <snip>
>
> >> do other women in these fields find the same behavior?
>
> Yes. But my treatment was from other females. I didn't have
> much problem with most males. The few males I had problems
> with had other issues.
interesting
the few problems i had from other females
were always other issues
women dismissed your comments
and assumed you wrong?
and assumed themselves to know correctly?
i'd like to think that this is not a sexual difference
but it has not been my experience
" gender, mathematics, and science "
by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
suggests that the research shows otherwise as well
however
could you generally describe an incident?
i would like to know what is different
and what is very much the same between the gender incidents
[...]
> >> did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
>
> <snip>
>
> Instead of bitching, go do the work. You are trying to play the
> "poor me, I'm getting picked on--please rescue me" games. That
> gets attention in today's elhi schools but doesn't get any
> productive work done. It's considered cute behaviour when you're
> a child; it is annoying when you're in college. It is behaviour
> that will cause you to be ignored when you're an adult.
i do my work
and i take care of myself
( now )
that doesn't mean
i didn't rush home and cry
a number of times when it first happened
and it really is what drove me away from math
to get a more engineering (programming) job
i was just curious if other women had the same initial reaction
i admire your strength
which i do not always have
( despite my ability to tantrum now and then )
galathaea
>
> >> i have regularly found
> >> that men tend to disbelieve me
> >> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
> >> and it seems to have an added twist for women
>
> Then you haven't observed with objectivity. Males
> are treated a lot worse.
i did not intend to suggest
that men do not do this amongst each other
usenet is filled with
idiot
stoopid
ignoramous
and other one line retorts amounting to immediate disbelief
i mentioned perelman
particularly because i wanted to stress
that i recognised its impact on men
the "added twist" i mentioned
was that there is often
perhaps in my experience only
a tendency to replace the direct aggression
with a more compassionate dismissal
>
> <snip>
>
> >> do other women in these fields find the same behavior?
>
> Yes. But my treatment was from other females. I didn't have
> much problem with most males. The few males I had problems
> with had other issues.
interesting
the few problems i had from other females
were always other issues
women dismissed your comments
and assumed you wrong?
and assumed themselves to know correctly?
i'd like to think that this is not a sexual difference
but it has not been my experience
" gender, mathematics, and science "
by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
suggests that the research shows otherwise as well
however
could you generally describe an incident?
i would like to know what is different
and what is very much the same between the gender incidents
[...]
> >> did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
>
> <snip>
>
> Instead of bitching, go do the work. You are trying to play the
> "poor me, I'm getting picked on--please rescue me" games. That
> gets attention in today's elhi schools but doesn't get any
> productive work done. It's considered cute behaviour when you're
> a child; it is annoying when you're in college. It is behaviour
> that will cause you to be ignored when you're an adult.
i do my work
and i take care of myself
( now )
that doesn't mean
i didn't rush home and cry
a number of times when it first happened
and it really is what drove me away from math
to get a more engineering (programming) job
i was just curious if other women had the same initial reaction
i admire your strength
which i do not always have
( despite my ability to tantrum now and then )
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dave L. Renfro
> Actually it had not occurred to me until this thread that
> you weren't. Or rather, that you had any particular
> gender. I would never try to guess gender from Usenet
> name.
If anything, I would think posting under a female name
would get more attention in sci.math, and I seem to recall
this actually being discussed sometime within the past two
or three years.
Dave L. Renfro
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> lately on these newgroups
> steve carlip
> whom i had always thought provided well-thought out responses
> wrote:
> " If you want to work on Bohmian mechanics as a program that
> *might* eventually lead to a deterministic alternative to QFT,
> that's fine (though be careful of your citations -- a number of
> the QFT models you've referred to are explicitly *not* deterministic).
> But don't confuse your hopes with what has actually been shown
> to be possible. "
> did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
> of course not
> like most posters in the thread
> he only started reading the literature after i posted links to it
And how, exactly, did you reach this conclusion? Was it because I cited
a paper by Nikolic, which I knew about because I had been following his
work and heard several of his talks (most recently at the DICE conference
last fall)? Or because I was unenthusiastic about some Bohmian papers
in my field, quantum gravity (which, if you want specifics, were based on
"minisuperspace models," models that throw out almost all of the physical
degrees of freedom and thereby avoid most of the difficult issues in quantum
gravity)? Or maybe because you think that no one who is familiar with the
literature could possibly question your optimism?
For your information, I have been interested in the de Broglie-Bohm approach
since reading de Broglie's _Non-linear wave mechanics: A causal interpretation_
as an undergraduate, and a bit later Bell's famous essay on de Broglie and Bohm.
I have not followed the whole field very closely, but have read some papers in
detail -- for example, Nikolic's attempts to find a covariant formulation, and
most of the recent work on Bohmian quantum gravity (the Shojais', but also
Horiguchi, Kenmoku et al., and de Barros et al.).
I apologize if my post seemed too dismissive. But I *do* object to you -- or
anyone else -- writing, in a forum aimed at nonexperts, in a way that implies
that crucial questions are settled when in fact they are not.
Steve Carlip
Lee Rudolph
...
>i should change my name
> and pretend to be a guy?
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
What's the point of being a prankster, fab[u]list, magician, and liar
if you don't keep your audience guessing?
Lee Rudolph
galathaea
it does hurt when one's hard research is dismissed
but i promise not to claim you have narcissistic personality disorder
for posting your credentials
and i apologise for the assumption
i made the claim because
- i did a search of past usenet archives and found only one
conversation
with ilya
where bohmian mechanics wa mentioned
by ilya
with no response from yourself
my search may have missed relevant items but i tried
- your response only referenced a paper i had referenced
- your response showed unfamiliarity with other papers
- if you had been following nikolic and the shojai's
it seemed very odd that you wouldn't have noticed
that nikolic claims little success has occurred
and does not cite the shojais
in some of his recent work on general covariance
that is all
again i apologise for assuming your ignorance here
i know how frustrating that can be
> I apologize if my post seemed too dismissive. But I *do* object to you -- or
> anyone else -- writing, in a forum aimed at nonexperts, in a way that implies
> that crucial questions are settled when in fact they are not.
i am not sure what crucial question you are speaking of
you claimed that i was wrong about deterministic bohminisations of qft
so i responded with a link to one of the several such results
i am aware of
as with ilya's point long ago
you left the discussion after that
now you are claiming you still have objections?
was there something wrong with the formalism of the paper i linked?
if not
do you find it intellectually dishonest to suggest that i am still
mistaken
with nothing more than another vague dismissal?
i make mistakes all the time
i had asked in my last post on the bohminisation topic
that if you were going to suggest my statements are only my hopes
or that i am confused about the literature
to be specific about your objections
but you've returned to vague accusation
to stay on topic in this thread
do you think this can be a deterrent for some people?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
>> I apologize if my post seemed too dismissive. But I *do* object to you -- or
>> anyone else -- writing, in a forum aimed at nonexperts, in a way that implies
>> that crucial questions are settled when in fact they are not.
> i am not sure what crucial question you are speaking of
> you claimed that i was wrong about deterministic bohminisations of qft
> so i responded with a link to one of the several such results
> i am aware of
You've pointed to several references with different, and inequivalent,
Bohmian approaches to QFT. They can't all be right.
Why don't you tell me specifically which approach you think correctly
deals with QFT, and in particular particle creation, annihilation,
and the interaction of different kinds of particles, in a deterministic
way.
[...]
> was there something wrong with the formalism of the paper i linked?
I'm sorry, I'm missing the context here. Which link to which paper
are you referring to?
Steve Carlip
galathaea
> In sci.physics galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 9:32 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I apologize if my post seemed too dismissive. But I *do* object to you -- or
> >> anyone else -- writing, in a forum aimed at nonexperts, in a way that implies
> >> that crucial questions are settled when in fact they are not.
> > i am not sure what crucial question you are speaking of
> > you claimed that i was wrong about deterministic bohminisations of qft
> > so i responded with a link to one of the several such results
> > i am aware of
>
> You've pointed to several references with different, and inequivalent,
> Bohmian approaches to QFT. They can't all be right.
there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics
whether they can all be right or not
depends on whether you make phenomenalist or realist assumptions
sounds like you are making realist assumptions
welcome to bohmian mechanics
> Why don't you tell me specifically which approach you think correctly
> deals with QFT, and in particular particle creation, annihilation,
> and the interaction of different kinds of particles, in a deterministic
> way.
>
> [...]
>
> > was there something wrong with the formalism of the paper i linked?
>
> I'm sorry, I'm missing the context here. Which link to which paper
> are you referring to?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
Keith Ramsay
On Apr 11, 1:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
|i've been called crazy
| because i discussed artemov's logic of proofs
| as a resolution to the bhk semantics ofconstructivism
|by people who had not read the papers
Are you referring to Torkel Franzen, me, or someone else?
Keith Ramsay
Wade Ward
"Keith Ramsay" <kra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176436047.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
crossposting this discussion.
--
ww
Lee Rudolph
"People" being an implicit plural, g. must be referring to at
least two of you.
Lee Rudolph
jmfb...@aol.com
"galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 12, 3:19 am, jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
>> [piggybacking post]
>> >On Apr 11, 9:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> i have regularly found
>> >> that men tend to disbelieve me
>> >> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>>
>> >> i have seen this regularly in my life
>> >> and it seems to have an added twist for women
>>
>> Then you haven't observed with objectivity. Males
>> are treated a lot worse.
>
>i did not intend to suggest
> that men do not do this amongst each other
>
>usenet is filled with
> idiot
> stoopid
> ignoramous
>and other one line retorts amounting to immediate disbelief
If you are implying that I am all of the above then you
certainly are just looking for attention and not trying
to figure out how to cope with the problems you have.
>
>i mentioned perelman
> particularly because i wanted to stress
> that i recognised its impact on men
>
>the "added twist" i mentioned
> was that there is often
> perhaps in my experience only
> a tendency to replace the direct aggression
> with a more compassionate dismissal
You are reading too much into it. If you act the way you
write here, then you would be dismissed as just another
annoying gnat.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> do other women in these fields find the same behavior?
>>
>> Yes. But my treatment was from other females. I didn't have
>> much problem with most males. The few males I had problems
>> with had other issues.
>
>interesting
>
>the few problems i had from other females
> were always other issues
You won't know until you start doing your work.
>
>women dismissed your comments
> and assumed you wrong?
Yup. And not comments, knowledge on how to do stuff.
>and assumed themselves to know correctly?
Nope. I had to to anybody who had balls in their pants and
get approval. You appear to suffer from this malady. You
need approval from the males rather than just getting on with
your work.
>
>i'd like to think that this is not a sexual difference
> but it has not been my experience
On the contrary, you whole story is about getting OKs from males.
>
>" gender, mathematics, and science "
>by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
>( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
> suggests that the research shows otherwise as well
Well, from personal experience, all this is bullshit. In addition,
the highest grades in my high school math classes were earned by
females. The males were always lower.
>
>however
> could you generally describe an incident?
>
>i would like to know what is different
>and what is very much the same between the gender incidents
Instead of wasting your time on situations that can't be changed,
why don't you just start doing your work? You will encounter
resistence in everything you do all the time. This happens
to all people. Those who succeed are those who don't let
roadblocks stop them.
>
>[...]
>> >> did carlip know enough of bohmian mechanics to make this assertion?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Instead of bitching, go do the work. You are trying to play the
>> "poor me, I'm getting picked on--please rescue me" games. That
>> gets attention in today's elhi schools but doesn't get any
>> productive work done. It's considered cute behaviour when you're
>> a child; it is annoying when you're in college. It is behaviour
>> that will cause you to be ignored when you're an adult.
>
>i do my work
>
>and i take care of myself
> ( now )
>
>that doesn't mean
> i didn't rush home and cry
>a number of times when it first happened
>
>and it really is what drove me away from math
Nobody drove me away from anything. All decisions were mine,
and I learned how to live with the consequences of each
decision. The big word for this is self-responsibility.
> to get a more engineering (programming) job
You are probably more suited to that kind of thinking.
>
>i was just curious if other women had the same initial reaction
I've given you one instance where they didn't. Our company's math
person was a female. I had a lot of female friends in college
who were math people. All the EEO bullshit that you have been
believing has been lies; again this if from my experience.
>
>i admire your strength
Good grief. It's not strength. It's just living.
> which i do not always have
> ( despite my ability to tantrum now and then )
Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
/BAH
Jeff…Relf
Uncle Al recently told me he was sending reports to my I.S.P.
People constantly tell me to stop posting. But I'm still here.
Today, in " news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET ",
I told Randy Poe to take it to " Alt.Randy-Poe-is-King ".
They censored Don Imus, but they can't censor me.
So who cares what the wannabe consors say ? not me.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
So you admit you're a troll?
We don't need to worry much more anyway. Once you're panhandling on the
street, usenet will be the least of your worries.
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi Galathaea,
> Uncle Al recently told me he was sending reports to my I.S.P.
> People constantly tell me to stop posting. But I'm still here.
What does that tell you about you?
> Today, in " news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET ",
> I told Randy Poe to take it to " Alt.Randy-Poe-is-King ".
And you thought that lame was so funny, you cant stop going on about it.
Well done jeff.
> They censored Don Imus, but they can't censor me.
> So who cares what the wannabe consors say ? not me.
Jeff, you are priceless.
galathaea
" gender, mathematics, and science "
by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
states:
" Gender differences in aggression are generally
larger than gender differences in the cognitive
domain and may contribute to male success in
careers and in earning power. Teachers may pay
attention to male students because they aggressively
seek information, providing these students with
additional feedback, encouragement, and
opportunities for practice (Dweck, 1986).
Furthermore, in some fields, aggressive argumentation
is taken as a sign of intelligence rather than a
gender-related behavior. Finally, aggressive
behavior on the part of males may interact with
gender differences in confidence to deter females
from pursuing scientific careers and thus securing
increased salaries. "
and this article is a much better resource
than may be indicated by that fragment
throughout it quotes correlation studies
showing not only measurable dimorphism test values
but also the trends those values are headed
it explores a number of tests
they explore how representative sampling
show no differences in
mathematical computation ability
and mathematical concept understand
but that there were differences in problem solving
which had been steadily decreasing
( and other more recent articles continue this trend )
the biggest differences in these abilities
are in seen in the more self-selective tests
where representative sampling is replaced with voluntary selection
so where psat mathematical differences were -.15
(weighted mean correlation)
high school problem solving tests showed -.29
college -.32
and the most selective tests -.54
with all trends decreasing
but maintaining the selection bias
and of course gender differences are not homogeneous
aggression
on the other hand
showed strong dimorphism in children (-.64)
which weakened into adulthood (-.29)
the data on whether this trend is decreasing is unclear
with some test showing mild improvement
and other surveys keeping fairly stable
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in other words
this is very real
this is not made up shit
you can ignore as whining
real selective pressure is placed on women
because of male aggression
if you are a professor
and you participate in this behavior
you are not an earnest teacher
you are merely collecting paychecks
and maintaining the status quo
Larry Hammick
>
> " gender, mathematics, and science "
> by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
> ( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
>
> states:
>
> " Gender differences in aggression are generally
> larger than gender differences in the cognitive
> domain and may contribute to male success in
> careers and in earning power. Teachers may pay
> attention to male students because they aggressively
> seek information, providing these students with
> additional feedback, encouragement, and
> opportunities for practice (Dweck, 1986).
> Furthermore, in some fields, aggressive argumentation
> is taken as a sign of intelligence rather than a
> gender-related behavior. Finally, aggressive
> behavior on the part of males may interact with
> gender differences in confidence to deter females
> from pursuing scientific careers and thus securing
> increased salaries. "
I have another theory re women in math at university level. Say a girl does
well in math at high school, likes the subject, and goes to university fully
intending to major in math. After a year or two of watching all these guys
busting their asses to be the alpha-male, she gets PO'ed and changes her
major. I don't blame her. Anybody can see how much vanity there is in this
game, at least in academia -- all those medals 'n prizes 'n festschrifts 'n
shit. No woman wants to be the alpha-virago, at least if she has any brains.
So the social setup is what my theory is about -- not the subject and not
the people, which is what the (alas) academic studies prefer to address. No
academic paper will steer for the conclusion that there is something wrong
with academic motives. Hell no.
Has anybody studied males versus females in areas where personal publicity
is not stake? Maybe in military crypto, which is never publicized? How many
women were at Bletchley Park, and how did they do?
galathaea
> In article <1176390155.799569.152...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >usenet is filled with
> > idiot
> > stoopid
> > ignoramous
> >and other one line retorts amounting to immediate disbelief
>
> If you are implying that I am all of the above then you
> certainly are just looking for attention and not trying
> to figure out how to cope with the problems you have.
it is common for women to believe
comments unrelated to them
may be about them
[...]
> >women dismissed your comments
> > and assumed you wrong?
>
> Yup. And not comments, knowledge on how to do stuff.
>
> >and assumed themselves to know correctly?
>
> Nope. I had to to anybody who had balls in their pants and
> get approval. You appear to suffer from this malady. You
> need approval from the males rather than just getting on with
> your work.
i do my work
i do not ask approval to do my work
which is why i have regularly been the most productive engineer
( more npd coming )
last year
i had the greatest codeline output
and the least number of breakage or bugs
those two things do noy usually go together
> >" gender, mathematics, and science "
> >by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
> >( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
> > suggests that the research shows otherwise as well
>
> Well, from personal experience, all this is bullshit. In addition,
> the highest grades in my high school math classes were earned by
> females. The males were always lower.
yes
exactly
i've never claimed differences in cognitive ability
i claimed differences in aggression
> > which i do not always have
> > ( despite my ability to tantrum now and then )
>
> Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
> on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
actually
carlips point was full of shit
and i answered him immediately
but i see
your one of _those_
who doesn't read and evaluate the facts for herself
but just goto's authority
i didn't wait a couple of days to post the requested article
i posted immediately after he asked
after he claimed i was the one confused about the literature
i didn't have to spend some time
sifting through the literature to appear knowledgable
and try to figure out the literaure
indeed my posting history on the topic
already points to much of the literature
and if you were to look at the article i posted
you will also notice that it supports my idea
that bohminisation and geometric quantisation
are intimately connected
the quantisation of discrete operators
through projection on to a span of some configuration space
with regions corresponding to discrete values
is reproduced in the standard treatment
in terms of polarisations
so i get my job done
is there a reason you don't read responses
and simply spread and take it?
galathaea
i really don't think it would be useful
to extend an argument that is already archived
in its full ad nauseum
aatu recently posted
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/net.html
which explains the psychology better than i could
instead of my beating a dead horse any more
i'd prefer to let his own living words speak for himself
i am sure he would prefer that too
( as would wade ward apparently )
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the problem is real
one's eyes should not avert from measurable facts
galathaea
> On 12 abr, 03:29, "Jesse F. Hughes" <j...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:> Rick Decker <rdec...@hamilton.edu> writes:
> > > galathaea wrote:
> > >> i have regularly found
> > >> that men tend to disbelieve me
> > >> if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
>
>
> > Not me. I am very familiar with the fact that galathaea makes dubious
> > claims. Consequently, I believe them.
>
> ***************************************************
> Correction (if you please): she makes dubious, twisted, very weird,
> terribly written and dismayingly long dubious facts.
> I stopped reading her posts long ago, but I must admit that the alpha
> male stuff caught my attention. Nothing better, at least for her,
> apparently, than claiming some kind of rather odd sexist stuff in
> science in order to justify her own failures. If you can mix this with
> claims of having opposed a rather stupid law about languages in which
> people can deal in their own businesses then better than better.
hello everyone
in case you don't know toni(c)o
he is the type of person who recently posted
that a mathematician's paper had been long disproved
and made claims on who had made the disproof and when
except that the entire incident never happened
he was using it to dismiss fernando revilla's work on goldbach
and stated his claims as if they were a warning to others
but it never happened
in fact
most that have followed revilla's claims
are quite aware of the history
because it is posted on usenet and archived
and regularly updated with questions and responses
so
did toni(c)o desire something so badly
that he influenced his own recollections
in the classic avoidance mechanisms
that cognitive dissonance allows?
or was his dishonesty intentioned
as a much more maladaptive pathology to scare away
something he did not want to have to deal with?
anyways
everyone meet toni(c)o
his reputation precedes him and is fully archived
Tonico
***************************************************
Indeed a liar you are, Galathea...and a bitter one, apparently.
Please do quote my post(s) where I claimed that some paper (which
one?) had already been disproved (by whom? How can I possibly know
stuff like this??).
I don't like the way Fernando posted his "proof", since both the
language and the way he defines and uses stuff doesn't seem proper to
me.
As for the validity of his paper I can't say: three times I've already
began to read it and I had to stop in the third page (my personal
best) because it is extremely difficult for me to follow all that mess
(at least a mess for me) in that paper. Perhaps it is just my own lack
of talent to understand that stuff, but I'm a professional
mathematician, I've read papers, and I have some expectations about
how a paper must look.
It was proposed to Fernando to send his paper to a peer reviewed
journal, and for some reason that I still cannot fully point at he
refuses to do so.
Ok, so perhaps he has a proof, and perhaps he has not one: I can't
say.
So please: be nice to the NG and post my messages where I claim that
Fernando's paper had long been refused. Perhaps I already forgot that
part of my life.
I bet that as a poor, attacked by alpha males, suffering woman you are
careful enough to back up your claims...right, fab(u)list? :>)
Tonio
galathaea
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/8cadcb987a2d8171?hl=en&
your avoidance mechanism
is really screwing your mind
but you are another in a long line of perfect examples
of the point of this thread
Tonico
No wonder you feel yourself attacked and a poor thing: you are such.
In that post of above I write perfectly clear, and I past from the
very link:
"...but I seem to remember that R. Chapman or A. Magidin
(I can't be 100% sure) did point out some mistake(s) the first time
you came up with the announcement of your GC's proof some few months
ago."
I wonder what part of that feeble, obviously histery-raged, mind of
yours didn't allow you, Gala dear, to understand the "seem to
remember" and the "can't be 100% sure" parts.
Apparently, and this is ONLY apparently, I didn't remember correctly,
but that is unimportant in that post of mind: the gist of my point to
Fernando was, as I ALREADY told you in my past message of around 1
hour ago, and you purposedly are dodging this, that he should send
his paper to a peer reviewed journal, as it is clearly written in
that post, and I past again:
"Anyway, the gist of my message is still valid, imo: whether there
were
(are) flaws in your paper or not, it'll be generally accepted by the
mathematical community only if it appears in some peer-reviewed
journal".
So what's next, my dearest full-of-complexes, liar omega-female?
Regards
Tonio
quasi
I disagree. I think it _is_ the subject, together with gender-based
personality pre-conditioning.
Math is a "macho" sport.
When working against a problem, you devise "attacks". The problem is
the adversary. This causes instinctive responses characteristic of
intense competition (adrenalin driven mental speedups, no need for
sleep, etc). The enjoyment of this kind of "fight" is less typical for
females.
There might be a biological explanation, but even if there is, I think
it's primarily a culturally induced bias. Gender oriented brainwashing
of young children by what they see on TV, the types of toys they are
steered towards, parental pressure to suppress aggressive tendencies
in girls while allowing it and even encouraging it in boys, and
eventually, peer pressure from their friends.
The women who do manage to break through in math are usually just as
macho as their male counterparts.
quasi
galathaea
in the first post
you were blatantly stating there were errors
when he called you on it
you were:
" uhh i don't know, someone did it, ii think "
keep defending it though
you are making my point very well
Tonico
******************************************
Well, being a liar and a fablist [sic], as you witness about yourself,
can surely feel cozy to attack others. I supose that is a reaction
against those terrible alpha males you've suffered so bad from?
Oh well...enjoy.
There were inaccuracies fixed in that paper: I, for one, already told
him (Fernando, and way before that post your quoted) that to include
into a definition of something another thing that has NOT already be
defined
is. to say thye least, pretty weird and may confuse. That very thing
STILL exists in the paper, at least as how it was some 2 weeks ago.
I guess things like the above were that made that paper so hard to
read for me, until I left it aside.
Anyway, that was NOT my point, as already noted by me, both in my last
post here, and in that link you posted....and you insist in dodging
that.
Regards, liar.
Tonio
galathaea
you may have hit the technological issue
although i do think there is sufficient evidence
to indicate confidence level differences
and its relation here
the system does seem to be the thing to fix here
motives are what perelman attacked
and i much admire sartre and tesla
for their aversion of the nobel prize
recently in a thread entitled "education of the children"
i mentioned that an online education
paced individually to the needs of the student
and with the freedom to explore topics
in much longer stretches of time
may be necessary to break up some of the constraints
of modern group-based education
of course
herman rubin has been saying similar things for years
and has a much more formalised picture of what he feels is needed
i think
technologically
if we can break up the dynamics of group-based education
many of these socially-institutionalised problems
can be solved
> Has anybody studied males versus females in areas where
> personal publicity is not stake? Maybe in military crypto,
> which is never publicized? How many women were at
> Bletchley Park, and how did they do?
" stereotype threat "
has been explored in a number of studies
here it has been shown that
when women knew they were being tested for gender differences
they did substantially worse than
when women thought the test was gender anonymous
genevieve grotjan is a fascinating woman
whose work in cryptography
helped the us decipher japanese communiques
i did a search for her to see if i could find a good summary
and instead found this page:
http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00014.cfm
galathaea
you may have hit the technological issue
although i do think there is sufficient evidence
to indicate confidence level differences
and its relation here
the system does seem to be the thing to fix here
motives are what perelman attacked
and i much admire sartre and tesla
for their aversion of the nobel prize
recently in a thread entitled "education of the children"
i mentioned that an online education
paced individually to the needs of the student
and with the freedom to explore topics
in much longer stretches of time
may be necessary to break up some of the constraints
of modern group-based education
of course
herman rubin has been saying similar things for years
and has a much more formalised picture of what he feels is needed
i think
technologically
if we can break up the dynamics of group-based education
many of these socially-institutionalised problems
can be solved
> Has anybody studied males versus females in areas where
> personal publicity is not stake? Maybe in military crypto,
> which is never publicized? How many women were at
> Bletchley Park, and how did they do?
" stereotype threat "
has been explored in a number of studies
here it has been shown that
when women knew they were being tested for gender differences
they did substantially worse than
when women thought the test was gender anonymous
genevieve grotjan is a fascinating woman
whose work in cryptography
helped the us decipher japanese communiques
i did a search for her to see if i could find a good summary
and instead found this page:
http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00014.cfm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Red
about how high school education is geared towards
girls, i.e, adapted to their needs, and repressive
of the male way of being. This by high school teachers
most of whom are females. How does fit into your
victimized female view of the world?.
It is a shame that many of the valid claims made
by women over time are being clouded by other much
more dubious claims. Care to quote any research that
_disagrees_ with your view?
claims made
P.S: You do sound (i.e, come of, in your writing)
as a pretty aggressive alpha male yourself, your
claims of shyness notwithstanding.
galathaea
> You either did not see, or are ignoring my post
>
> about how high school education is geared towards
>
> girls, i.e, adapted to their needs, and repressive
>
> of the male way of being. This by high school teachers
>
> most of whom are females. How does fit into your
>
> victimized female view of the world?.
in my victimised female view of the world
i see all education as a horrible mess
the collectivised lowest-common-denominator education
of large groups of students
fractured into regular intervals of time per subject
is not conducive to real understanding
it is a degradation of education
to meet the requirements of day care
afflicted on society by the two working parent paradigm
i do not think this environment favors anyone
i think that it is destructive in many ways to everyone
i think in the process
women encounter aggression that turns them away from some pursuits
and men grow bored and start playing competitive games to compensate
its a mess
i have always found that
there is much more time to study deep topics
when out of a school setting
it is much easier to go much deeper into an area
and more challenging to work on solutions
i really believe the future of education
is multimedia online instruction and tests
with something usenet-like as the homework/q+a
> It is a shame that many of the valid claims made
>
> by women over time are being clouded by other much
>
> more dubious claims. Care to quote any research that
>
> _disagrees_ with your view?
most studies i've seen
show definite dimoprphism in aggression
and definite dimorphism in confidence
and only some tests
measuring some very specific stimuli
show that with those stimuli the response is less clear
( though never in the opposite direction from what i've seen )
but i will read any study that anyone points out relevant to this
topic
i am interested in understanding the real data
i am all too familiar with my thoughts on the matter
> claims made
>
> P.S: You do sound (i.e, come of, in your writing)
>
> as a pretty aggressive alpha male yourself, your
>
> claims of shyness notwithstanding.
yes
i decided some time back
to forcefully assert myself when challenged in this manner
i no longer keep quiet
and regularly break out into one of these moralising tantrums
where we can break out the facts and lay them on the table
it is not that i expect to change much
but i have changed my self to no longer contribute to the problem
eventually i return to more normal contributions to the groups
its a process
galathaea
>
> about how high school education is geared towards
>
> girls, i.e, adapted to their needs, and repressive
>
> of the male way of being. This by high school teachers
>
> most of whom are females. How does fit into your
>
> victimized female view of the world?.
[ apologies if this double posts
i have been facing ten-fifteen minute post lags
and a number of dropped posts
ctrl-a, ctl-c, is my only defense ]
in my victimised female view of the world
i see all education as a horrible mess
the collectivised lowest-common-denominator education
of large groups of students
fractured into regular intervals of time per subject
is not conducive to real understanding
it is a degradation of education
to meet the requirements of day care
afflicted on society by the two working parent paradigm
i do not think this environment favors anyone
i think that it is destructive in many ways to everyone
i think in the process
women encounter aggression that turns them away from some pursuits
and men grow bored and start playing competitive games to compensate
its a mess
i have always found that
there is much more time to study deep topics
when out of a school setting
it is much easier to go much deeper into an area
and more challenging to work on solutions
i really believe the future of education
is multimedia online instruction and tests
with something usenet-like as the homework/q+a
> It is a shame that many of the valid claims made
>
> by women over time are being clouded by other much
>
> more dubious claims. Care to quote any research that
>
> _disagrees_ with your view?
most studies i've seen
show definite dimoprphism in aggression
and definite dimorphism in confidence
and only some tests
measuring some very specific stimuli
show that with those stimuli the response is less clear
( though never in the opposite direction from what i've seen )
but i will read any study that anyone points out relevant to this
topic
i am interested in understanding the real data
i am all too familiar with my thoughts on the matter
> claims made
>
> P.S: You do sound (i.e, come of, in your writing)
>
> as a pretty aggressive alpha male yourself, your
>
> claims of shyness notwithstanding.
yes
i decided some time back
to forcefully assert myself when challenged in this manner
i no longer keep quiet
and regularly break out into one of these moralising tantrums
where we can break out the facts and lay them on the table
it is not that i expect to change much
but i have changed my self to no longer contribute to the problem
eventually i return to more normal contributions to the groups
its a process
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alie...@gmail.com
Um, ISTM what you're pursuing is generally called a "polemic". IOW
you assume a conclusion and seek data that support it while discarding
data that don't.
I wrote a long (for me) post suggesting some actual strategies for
dealing with the difficulties you perceive but you appear to have
decided to ignore it. Why, because it does not support your foregone
conclusion? Was I not adequately aggressive?
Or do you not want any solutions and merely wish to bash men in
general?
Mark L. Fergerson
fernando revilla
I remember to you the interchange of mathematical ideas
we had in this forum.If I have missed some fundamental
post then, add it.
1)
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5152146&tstart=0
2)
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5152382&tstart=0
3)
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5156612&tstart=0
4)
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5153344&tstart=0
Regards.
Fernando.
greysky
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:evnl7g$8qk...@s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> In article <1176390155.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
<Snip garbage>
Pay no attention to this one. She is too busy sucking the milk of human
kindness from Uncle Al's tit...
Day Brown
that the alphas have higher adrenalin (speeds reflexes, but also
creates impulsive aggression) and lower seratonin (which sharpens
senses, but makes for restless sleep. Its the alphas who are alert
enough at nite to warn everyone of prowling predators, but- "dont
bother your father, he just woke up" - grouchy.)
Its the alphas how man the line of battle defending the tribe. What
are the betas good for? Well, it turns out, that like the females,
they intuitively read body language so as to pick up on when an alpha
will impulsively strike out, and routinely place themselves between
the females and young. They are the same size as the alphas and can
take the blows without damage.
It turns out that the daughters of the alphas are similarly, but not
as aggressive. They also often abandon and abuse the young. It is the
betas and the daughters of the betas who adopt the orphans. Without
enough betas child mortaltity is too high to maintain the group.
Thus in hominid history we see that the alphas are terrific at winning
empires, but then cant maintain them. Their sons grow up with the same
instinct to want to dominate, and internal power struggles destroy the
nation. Thus it is that the next sultan is he who successfully murders
all his brothers.
Nowadays, the competition takes other forms, as in scientific and
economic competition. They dont seek to murder so much as simply
destroy a man's reputation. Ruin him.
Hominid evolution created very different pressures for the females.
They were stolen and traded to other tribes, and needed the emotional
flexibility to adapt to whatever the social values were. Men, OTOH,
were always known as steadfast, firm in their convictions. Shakespeare
has Casear say:"You will have to forgive the man Mercutio; he is a
barbarian who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of Nature."
And in scientific endeavor, we see tribal customs evolve. And get
defended fiercely. As women enter these fields, there is an instinct
to seek common ground and cooperate as they've always done with
whatever heirarchy they found themselves in.
Nature has clipped the extremes of the bell curve for women so as to
ensure some degree of sanity and competency to nurture kids. Which is
why most geniuses are men, but also, if you visit a mental
institution, so are the severe retards and psychotics. And sometimes,
we see a man move from genius into psychosis, or even vice versus.
Because females developed the instuitive body language skill so as to
avoid being the target of alpha aggression, they've also applied that
instinct to whatever organization they are in, and innately seek to
defuse situations lest they become an "ancillary casualty".
But both men and women are subject to group think. We did, after all,
evolve in small gene pools. And while it is most often a man who will
challenge the group think, it is the women who sort out who are the
trolls and who the innovators.
galathaea
> On Apr 12, 2:00 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > In sci.physics galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 9:32 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> I apologize if my post seemed too dismissive. But I *do* object to you -- or
> > >> anyone else -- writing, in a forum aimed at nonexperts, in a way that implies
> > >> that crucial questions are settled when in fact they are not.
> > > i am not sure what crucial question you are speaking of
> > > you claimed that i was wrong about deterministic bohminisations of qft
> > > so i responded with a link to one of the several such results
> > > i am aware of
>
> > You've pointed to several references with different, and inequivalent,
> > Bohmian approaches to QFT. They can't all be right.
>
> there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics
>
> whether they can all be right or not
> depends on whether you make phenomenalist or realist assumptions
>
> sounds like you are making realist assumptions
>
> welcome to bohmian mechanics
>
> > Why don't you tell me specifically which approach you think correctly
> > deals with QFT, and in particular particle creation, annihilation,
> > and the interaction of different kinds of particles, in a deterministic
> > way.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > was there something wrong with the formalism of the paper i linked?
>
> > I'm sorry, I'm missing the context here. Which link to which paper
> > are you referring to?
>
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
if you are having difficulty
with any of the more arcane bohmian terminology
there is a great book from 1989 by springer-verlag (hail satan!)
" quantum theory and pictures of reality:
foundations, interpretations, and new aspects "
is a great compilation of
many of that generation of foundationalists
selleri
d'espagnat
eberhard
the second article by eberhard
" a realistic model for quantum theory
with a locality property "
describes a relativistic theory
with a tunable ability to be unobservably different
from the standard relativistic quantum theory
of course
this is not referenced much in the modern generation's work
except in fields of slightly different endeavors
but it is part of the heritage you seem to doubt
Tonico
wrote:
***********************************************
Ah, thanx a lot! Just the very first link above shows that I did
address the thing about defining something with the help of something
that will be defined LATER. It still seems to me that this is
incorrect, but it never minds.
I remember that I pointed out another unclear (to me) things in that
paper of yours, Fernando, and things began going down between we two
because (1) I really got tired and couldn't continue reading the paper
past 2-3 pages (my bad, perhaps), and (2) in link 2 or 3 you called my
remarks "garbage", and this after you SPECIFICALLY asked people to
point out problems, unclear things, etc. in that paper.
Anyway, that's beyond the point now. At least Galathea, the poor
abused omega woman, won't be able to claim anymore his lies as if they
were true stuff...or perhaps she will, go figure.
Regards
Tonio
fernando revilla
Relax yourself, my previous post was only as a way of
free intellectual charity work. You know, "The Holy
Spirit, teach us. Don't let us misunderstand something".
Fernando.
Jeff…Relf
but you should realize that the ancient game of " king of the hill "
selects only a _ Few _ males, excluding the majority.
Yeah, Bill Gates is rich, but he's only one man.
Bill Gates' net worth is 56 gigadollars, but he can't buy youth.
Girls love the boys, not the old farts, no matter how rich.
Your life, my life, our lives, are our only true fortunes.
All wisdom, information and wealth pales compared to that.
_ Nothing _ reveses the hands of time.
I do not have a loving wife like this:
" www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Jeffs_Loving_Wife.JPG ",
...nor even a nasty bitch like this:
" www.KwasOnline.COM/images/mange%20skin%20infection%206.JPG ",
...I live alone.
I pay 430 U.S. dollars rent per month ( near the U.W. in Seattle );
no pets ( bye Wimpels ! ) and, effectively, no friends ( bye Duckie ! )
are allowed.
Coding for printers and developing courseware
are how I earn my living, so I live near campus in Seattle.
jmfb...@aol.com
"galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 3:15 am, jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <1176390155.799569.152...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> >usenet is filled with
>> > idiot
>> > stoopid
>> > ignoramous
>> >and other one line retorts amounting to immediate disbelief
>>
>> If you are implying that I am all of the above then you
>> certainly are just looking for attention and not trying
>> to figure out how to cope with the problems you have.
>
>it is common for women to believe
> comments unrelated to them
> may be about them
I'm beginning to think I've wasted my time.
>
>[...]
>> >women dismissed your comments
>> > and assumed you wrong?
>>
>> Yup. And not comments, knowledge on how to do stuff.
>>
>> >and assumed themselves to know correctly?
>>
>> Nope. I had to to anybody who had balls in their pants and
>> get approval. You appear to suffer from this malady. You
>> need approval from the males rather than just getting on with
>> your work.
>
>i do my work
>
>i do not ask approval to do my work
> which is why i have regularly been the most productive engineer
>
>( more npd coming )
>
>last year
> i had the greatest codeline output
> and the least number of breakage or bugs
Oh, dear.
>
>those two things do noy usually go together
Sounds like the metrics used in your area are similar to the
WPM metric that secretaries had.
>
>> >" gender, mathematics, and science "
>> >by marcia c linn and janet s hyde
>> >( educational researcher v 18 n 8 pp 17-27 )
>> > suggests that the research shows otherwise as well
>>
>> Well, from personal experience, all this is bullshit. In addition,
>> the highest grades in my high school math classes were earned by
>> females. The males were always lower.
>
>yes
>
>exactly
>
>i've never claimed differences in cognitive ability
>
>i claimed differences in aggression
You've been bitching about not getting recognized immediately by
all people you bug.
>
>> > which i do not always have
>> > ( despite my ability to tantrum now and then )
>>
>> Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
>> on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
>
>actually
> carlips point was full of shit
> and i answered him immediately
I have been wasting my time. You are not able to identify experts
nor listen to their pointers.
>
>but i see
>
>your one of _those_
>
>who doesn't read and evaluate the facts for herself
>but just goto's authority
You are just trolling.
>
>i didn't wait a couple of days to post the requested article
> i posted immediately after he asked
> after he claimed i was the one confused about the literature
He didn't say that. He also explained further. I suspect he
had assumed that you had enough background to understand what
he wrote...but you do not.
>
>i didn't have to spend some time
> sifting through the literature to appear knowledgable
> and try to figure out the literaure
So you don't think you have to do the work.
>
>indeed my posting history on the topic
> already points to much of the literature
>
>and if you were to look at the article i posted
> you will also notice that it supports my idea
> that bohminisation and geometric quantisation
>are intimately connected
>
>the quantisation of discrete operators
> through projection on to a span of some configuration space
> with regions corresponding to discrete values
>is reproduced in the standard treatment
>in terms of polarisations
>
>so i get my job done
>
>is there a reason you don't read responses
> and simply spread and take it?
Here's a ton of Kleenix, kid.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
I consider it part of my responsibility to fix the idiotic notion
that females can't do math because males won't let them. This
one is promoting that fairy tale in a sly manner.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
Your analysis is a bit wrong. I will make the point that the
women who are in those fields and busy doing real work, don't
waste their time filling out bullshit questionaires. I will
also point out that the parts this galenta cut and pasted smelled
of slanting stats to prove a NOW point but I can't figure out
which sentence gave that odour.
What really pisses me off, is that all these "studies" are
really trying to undermine the women who are doing that
kind of work. I've run into this during my working life.
"If you're successful in the technical areas, then
males must have done the work."
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
jmfb...@aol.com
Is that the word for it? Is there a word for using this as
a social strategy to dumb down the general population?
> IOW
>you assume a conclusion and seek data that support it while discarding
>data that don't.
>
> I wrote a long (for me) post suggesting some actual strategies for
>dealing with the difficulties you perceive but you appear to have
>decided to ignore it. Why, because it does not support your foregone
>conclusion? Was I not adequately aggressive?
>
> Or do you not want any solutions and merely wish to bash men in
>general?
In this thread, s/he/it appears to be targeting Carlip for
some reason I haven't figured out yet.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
And you seem to have explicitly ignored the alpha female.
I think you've watched too many Hollywood movies.
>
>And in scientific endeavor, we see tribal customs evolve. And get
>defended fiercely. As women enter these fields, there is an instinct
>to seek common ground and cooperate as they've always done with
>whatever heirarchy they found themselves in.
>
>Nature has clipped the extremes of the bell curve for women so as to
>ensure some degree of sanity and competency to nurture kids. Which is
>why most geniuses are men,
Huh?
> but also, if you visit a mental
>institution, so are the severe retards and psychotics. And sometimes,
>we see a man move from genius into psychosis, or even vice versus.
>Because females developed the instuitive body language skill so as to
>avoid being the target of alpha aggression, they've also applied that
>instinct to whatever organization they are in, and innately seek to
>defuse situations lest they become an "ancillary casualty".
>
>But both men and women are subject to group think. We did, after all,
>evolve in small gene pools. And while it is most often a man who will
>challenge the group think, it is the women who sort out who are the
>trolls and who the innovators.
I'm going to assume you are a troll and don't really believe all
of this.
/BAH
Phineas T Puddleduck
Says the loon who claims to have invented an FTL radio, yet refuses to
post schematics.
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
galathaea
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <1176477429.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
> >> on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
> >
> >actually
> > carlips point was full of shit
> > and i answered him immediately
>
> I have been wasting my time. You are not able to identify experts
> nor listen to their pointers.
no
you most certainly are not wasting your time
you've put no time into your position at all
you haven't read the literature
or even the one paper that i took the time to post
to discredit carlip's dismissal
instead you have made it clear to anyone following the argument
who has even a minimum scientific reading comprehension
that you are not a scientist
you are merely a toady
that follows up anyone you have already given intellectual alpha
status to
and feels safe in defending their position without comprehension
to make it easier for others to see your foolishness
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
> >but i see
> >
> >your one of _those_
> >
> >who doesn't read and evaluate the facts for herself
> >but just goto's authority
>
> You are just trolling.
that's a great word for you to use
it causes all the cognitive dissonance you need
to avoid actually confronting any real science
don't think i
or any other lurkers with minimal logical ability
do not realise you have stated nothing on the actual issue
instead
you like to sound more like a physical education coach
barking your "get to work" orders left and right
not realising
because you do not want to realise
the work was done before you ever came on the scene
> >i didn't wait a couple of days to post the requested article
> > i posted immediately after he asked
> > after he claimed i was the one confused about the literature
>
> He didn't say that. He also explained further. I suspect he
> had assumed that you had enough background to understand what
> he wrote...but you do not.
yeah
he explained further that he really objected
to anyone claiming that bohmian mechanics could give a theory
of deterministic quantum field theory
he also tried to pass off some of his knowledge on quantum gravity
to explain why he was dismissive of the bohmian approach there
and generally gave a lot of unrelated handwaving on why dismissing was
valid
you
give a lot of handwaving on why carlip is right
keeping your comments purposely vague in the same way he originally
did
because it is a classic method
now common on usenet
to appear knowledgeable about subjects
you haven't yet found the right wikipedia page to support yourself on
did i mention
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
?
> >i didn't have to spend some time
> > sifting through the literature to appear knowledgable
> > and try to figure out the literaure
>
> So you don't think you have to do the work.
again
your purposefully bad reading comprehension
does not score debate points
and only illustrates your lack of substance
i have already read that literature
numerous times
i keep filing cabinets full of papers at my home
so i can organise the research to my own pursuits
in fact
looking over your entire message
it is clear your message is much better suited
for mister carlip and yourself
> >indeed my posting history on the topic
> > already points to much of the literature
> >
> >and if you were to look at the article i posted
> > you will also notice that it supports my idea
> > that bohminisation and geometric quantisation
> >are intimately connected
> >
> >the quantisation of discrete operators
> > through projection on to a span of some configuration space
> > with regions corresponding to discrete values
> >is reproduced in the standard treatment
> >in terms of polarisations
> >
> >so i get my job done
> >
> >is there a reason you don't read responses
> > and simply spread and take it?
>
>
> Here's a ton of Kleenix, kid.
exactly
and wherever substance is provided
you look away
avoidance mechanisms are a bitch
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-A...@news.octanews.com...
> In article <glXTh.8735$u03....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> "greysky" <gre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:evnl7g$8qk...@s814.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> > > In article <1176390155.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > <Snip garbage>
> >
> > Pay no attention to this one. She is too busy sucking the milk of human
> > kindness from Uncle Al's tit...
>
>
> Says the loon who claims to have invented an FTL radio, yet refuses to
> post schematics.
>
HJ
galathaea
i am not discarding data
i am pointing to data
that one paper
despite its age
references a good crossesection of available studies
another good piece is:
" stereotype threat and women's math performance"
by steven j spencer, claude m steele, and diane m quinn
references are an important part of scientific investigation
i am quite willing to look at any you may have on the topic
most tests i am aware of
though
do note the behavioral tendencies mentioned
and there does seem to be evidence
that they combine to contribute to the also observed
differences in frequency of scientific and mathematical participation
> I wrote a long (for me) post suggesting some actual strategies for
> dealing with the difficulties you perceive but you appear to have
> decided to ignore it. Why, because it does not support your foregone
> conclusion? Was I not adequately aggressive?
no
i have planned on answering
i work for a living
and can only contribute so much time out of my day for answering
so sometimes my answers are delayed
you may notice that several people have accused me of ignoring them
despite my having answered a number of posts already
most trolls with their minds made up
post and leave
> Or do you not want any solutions and merely wish to bash men in
> general?
i very much want you to challenge my thinking with well supported
ideas
when i am wrong
and it happens very frequently
i need to find out so i don't wander around foolishly
making incorrect statements
sometimes
though
it can be fun to bash men
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea
nu...@bid.ness wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i have regularly found
> > that men tend to disbelieve me
> > if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
> > do other women find they continually have to justify themselves to
> > men?
> > is this a truly sexually dimorphic problem?
>
> IMO associating the adversarial and cooperative mindsets with sexual
> dimorphism is a mistake; they don't always correlate directly. There
> does seem to have been some strong social selection pressure applied
> as long as we've been "human" but it obviously hasn't worked or women
> who are naturally adversarial wouldn't still regularly get called
> 'dykes' and naturally cooperative men wouldn't get called 'pussies'.
i agree that the sexes may not be the best level of granularity
but they are a natural and scientific starting point
the effect is correlated in the direction of gender
and gender is easily measurable
but i absolutely agree that
given appropriate tests to distinguish the personality type
that are distinct in scope from the tests to measure the effect
we can make progress
aggression is regularly a consequence
of sexual dimorphism in the hypothalamus during differentiation
with all of its connections to the limbic processing
in males
testosterone affects this early development
in ways different than testosterone-absent development
this one scientifically measurable process
is at the root of a number of sexually dimorphic behaviors
including eating disorders
and other process oriented action schemas
and their emotional base
should structure in the hypothalamus
or the greater limbic
be the desiderata here?
> But consider what kind of person (not just men) does that sort of
> name-calling. ;>)
>
> Basically ISTM all this hoopla about alphas and betas is misapplied;
> we see that sort of difference in many mammals and assume it applies
> to us, but remember that alone among higher mammals humans do not go
> into estrus; we have no evolutionary need to have either gender be "in
> charge" all the time. I'm about three-quarters convinced that the
> apparent statistical male-adversarial/female-cooperative correlation
> we do see is a genetic holdover from when we did go into estrus.
that does fit in with the neurological models
[...]
> > i am just wondering how others deal with this
>
> Well, as a naturally cooperative man I learned that the adversarial
> mindset is not actually at its root hostile; it's a weird mixture of
> competitiveness and cooperation. An adversarial person _needs_ someone
> to argue vehemently with in order to get the subject of discussion
> sorted out. If you take the time to learn the rules (there are rules)
> and apply them you can not only hold your own but find yourself being
> sought out by them because they know you can help them.
>
> I have a nice story about simultaneously embarassing a member of a
> "jock clan" and getting their group respect if you'd like to hear it.
>
> IME the largest obstacle either type faces is getting a handle on
> their emotional responses. When someone gets in your face you
> naturally respond with fear because that's what cooperatives do; fear
> non-cooperation. Our hindbrains think "I must be doing something
> wrong, I can't get them to cooperate" so we reflexively back down to
> inspire what we think is proper behavior but the adversarial's is
> thinking "I must be doing something wrong, I can't get them to put up
> a fight" so they reflexively push harder to inspire what they think is
> proper behavior.
>
> I know several professional women who start meetings saying things
> like "Look, if I start crying ignore it; it's simply my emotions doing
> their thing and I won't let it interfere with my thinking processes,
> so don't let it interfere with yours". That sorta works because most
> men are wetwired to stop thinking and start protecting when they see a
> woman crying _whether or not the woman actually needs it_. Making them
> realize it while it's happening does seem to help them retain
> objectivity in professional settings.
>
> It isn't easy though; adversarials are not naturally good at
> introspection, and cooperatives aren't good at whatever its opposite
> might be called. If one can't do it the other must do it for them, or
> just walk away.
>
> Look at it this way; your mind is your primary tool, and it's to
> your benefit to know as much as you can not only about how it works
> but how it can be "McGyvered" without breaking anything. It's also to
> your benefit to understand how others' minds work for the same
> reasons. Consider the possible utility of emulating adversarialism on
> your cooperative wetware...
i actually believe that such metaprogramming (to use dr lily's term)
is an important part of psychological development
and that it is a good way to learn to have better mental health
but as a technological solution to the problem i think it will fail
5 year old girls
in general - despite an occasional specific
will not get what they need from such a program
it takes a lot of self-realisation
that takes a number of years to develop
aggression is strongest in childhood
and must be handled before it becomes selective
i think it is much more an issue that there is a place for this
aggressive conduct
and that technological solutions for it may have better luck
if they focus on extract the educational interaction at its root
students do not need to interact competitively
in particular
students do not need to even follow the same educational plan
if we were to just move education online
that simple step would break the stranglehold of mediocrity
allowing the best instructional plans the widest audiences
and would cost much less than modern infrastructure
> > ( the guys can answer too
> > if they promise to take a shower and brush their teeth )
>
> Did you shave your legs and armpits before posting? Fair's fair.
http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/242613.html
greysky
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:evqaa9$8qk...@s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
out - that is if you really were any good. Maybe you could have saved me ten
or twenty grand.... ahh...just a dream. Look what just happened to Don Imus
for 10 seconds of stooopidity - Uncle Al's been doing much worse for years.
Now, I can call him a liar as well - wasn't he *never* going to grace this
'river of shit' with his presence? Now he's posting again... and you defend
every ugly, venal, sick, perverted, racist, thing he says. Too bad Imus
didn't have you out there defending him...
Greysky
Aatu Koskensilta
> On Apr 11, 1:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> |i've been called crazy
> | because i discussed artemov's logic of proofs
> | as a resolution to the bhk semantics of constructivism
> |by people who had not read the papers
>
> Are you referring to Torkel Franzen, me, or someone else?
As far as I know, the only person to mention the word "crazy" in
connection with galathaea's musings on Artemov's paper is galathaea
herself. Apparently she took Torkel's comment, having nothing to do with
galathaea's queer interpretation of Artemov's results, that the claim
that Gödel tried to show that "the process of proof could comprehend all
truth" - an idea Gödel, according to glathaea, shared with Hilbert - is
nothing but pure fantasy as a comment on her mental health.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
galathaea
wrote:
> Keith Ramsay wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 1:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > |i've been called crazy
> > | because i discussed artemov's logic of proofs
> > | as a resolution to the bhk semantics of constructivism
> > |by people who had not read the papers
>
> > Are you referring to Torkel Franzen, me, or someone else?
>
> As far as I know, the only person to mention the word "crazy" in
> connection with galathaea's musings on Artemov's paper is galathaea
> herself. Apparently she took Torkel's comment, having nothing to do with
> galathaea's queer interpretation of Artemov's results, that the claim
> that Gödel tried to show that "the process of proof could comprehend all
> truth" - an idea Gödel, according to glathaea, shared with Hilbert - is
> nothing but pure fantasy as a comment on her mental health.
you learn very quickly
Aatu Koskensilta
> you learn very quickly
Thank you!
galathaea
if i were to build the next
multibillionaire making technology company
i too would make a search engine like google
but i would sell secret control to the american cia
for a few billions of those "black funds" per annum
then they could control access to all information
by building the corporation into the largest archival company
and forcing competition into bankruptcy
( and forfeiture of archival )
they could keep china's restrictions on for most of the continent
but for small bands of resistance
the could identify ip addresses and allow
( through clever cia programming trickery )
the resistance access to sensitive information
without being caught by their major internet sniffing routes
i would use the initial landfall of money
to start up weapons companies
and with my new cia connections i would
instigate small conflicts for fun and profit
then
when i reached 50
i would try to find a cure for syphilis
to ease my worried soul over my murderous life
then i'd go live somewhere in southeast asia
.
but money is not my goal
so i will " do no evil "
( in the famous phrase )
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> You've dismissed me, Galathaea, because I'm old and seldom bath/brush;
They are the *least* of your selling points.
Abject idiocy, a lack of understanding on pretty much every topic and the
social skills of a leech are much more significant.
Most people don't even know about your absent personal hygiene rituals.
It is how you earn your living. The fact you live on the breadline is a
testament to your skill.
Art Deco
<blink>
Did he really post this?
<boggle>
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
John "C"
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:140420071631316251%er...@caballista.org...
Brain" disease.
HJ
Autymn D. C.
R^2 != 2^R
One can bring up the female alfa problem in faketh and the societies.
Hate everyone and everything. Dash them, thrash them, burn them.
Then onely the truthe can livvan.
-Aut
Alie...@gmail.com
That right there points up the main focus of my participation in
this thread; if you don't want to be stereotyped, then don't! It is in
your power to be what you want (or at least to arrange your behaviors
so that others perceive you as you wish to be perceived).
> references are an important part of scientific investigation
>
> i am quite willing to look at any you may have on the topic
I am less interested in scholarly references written by persons with
unknown biases than I am in empirical data (unfortunately that's
dismissed as "anecdotal").
> most tests i am aware of
> though
> do note the behavioral tendencies mentioned
>
> and there does seem to be evidence
> that they combine to contribute to the also observed
> differences in frequency of scientific and mathematical participation
The reason you included the word "seems" is because you honestly
doubt all this, right?
> > I wrote a long (for me) post suggesting some actual strategies for
> > dealing with the difficulties you perceive but you appear to have
> > decided to ignore it. Why, because it does not support your foregone
> > conclusion? Was I not adequately aggressive?
>
> no
>
> i have planned on answering
>
> i work for a living
> and can only contribute so much time out of my day for answering
> so sometimes my answers are delayed
Yeah, I know.
> you may notice that several people have accused me of ignoring them
> despite my having answered a number of posts already
Position-defending is a survival strategy. Unfortunately all of us
have the bad habit of forgetting that the terrain can shift under our
feet.
> most trolls with their minds made up
> post and leave
You already know what to do about trolls, yes? Look for the post I
made "OT Public Service Message" about the killfile addon for Gmail
(AFAIK only for Firefox). I suggest you use it sparingly though;
occasionally the worst loons blurt out useful gems.
> > Or do you not want any solutions and merely wish to bash men in
> > general?
>
> i very much want you to challenge my thinking with well supported
> ideas
The best support is reality. Are you old enough to have accrued
enough of your own experiences to challenge the polemicists on both
"sides" of the gender debate?
> when i am wrong
> and it happens very frequently
> i need to find out so i don't wander around foolishly
> making incorrect statements
That's a Good Thing.
> sometimes
> though
> it can be fun to bash men
No, that's self-pity. Take up Aikido instead.
Mark L. Fergerson
T Wake
Sadly (or entertainingly, depends on your mindset), yes. Jeff did indeed
post this.
I think this is what Jeff calls a chat up line...
Phineas T Puddleduck
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
> Sadly (or entertainingly, depends on your mindset), yes. Jeff did indeed
> post this.
>
> I think this is what Jeff calls a chat up line...
BWAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
John "C"
> In article <JO-dnR8R2PPd8bzb...@pipex.net>,
> "T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sadly (or entertainingly, depends on your mindset), yes. Jeff did indeed
> > post this.
> >
> > I think this is what Jeff calls a chat up line...
>
>
> BWAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
>
HJ
Jeff…Relf
which search engine do you use ? Yahoo ? with its flashy ads ?
Who, other than Google, can calculate
" 3.7 million * 2.95 km in AU = " ?
Why do people shovel 11 gigadollars to Google every year ?
Speaking of Google... Here's some screenshots,
including what ( ad-free ) Google looks like to me:
Images show full-size, not scaled down:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Full_Size.PNG
www.Stat.OregonState.EDU/people/qu
Dictionary.COM, Thee best Spell Checker I know of:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Dictionary.PNG
http://Dictionary.Reference.COM/browse/Relf
Answers.COM, Google's reference " book ":
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Answers.PNG
www.Answers.COM/big+bang
A Google Groups search:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Google_Groups_Search.PNG
http://Google.COM/groups/search?q=Jeff%E2%80%A6Relf
Using Google to Find a Message-ID:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Google_Groups_MID.PNG
http://Google.COM/advanced_group_search
Viewing a Usenet post in Google:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Google_Groups_Post.PNG
http://Google.COM/group/sci.physics/msg/4864b8516b2d5b57
Browsing a Usenet thread using Google:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Google_Groups_Browse.PNG
http://Google.COM/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/deaea9878a587665/792a0c107c0bf39c?lnk=st&q=%22Frazir%22
Translator for Portuguese, Russian, French, Spanish, Italian, German:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ParaLink.PNG
http://Translation.ParaLink.COM
Google Images:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Google_Images.PNG
http://Google.COM/images?imgsz=xxlarge&q=%22Big+Bang%22
userChrome.CSS and userContent.CSS:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/userContent.CSS
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/userChrome.CSS
My " Desktop --> Properties --> Themes " settings for Windows-XP,
" www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Jeff_Relf.Theme "
Autymn D. C.
> jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:
> > In article <1176477429.213999.263...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
> > >> on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
>
> > >actually
> > > carlips point was full of shit
> > > and i answered him immediately
>
> > I have been wasting my time. You are not able to identify experts
> > nor listen to their pointers.
>
> no
>
> you most certainly are not wasting your time
>
> you've put no time into your position at all
>
> you haven't read the literature
> or even the one paper that i took the time to post
> to discredit carlip's dismissal
>
> instead you have made it clear to anyone following the argument
> who has even a minimum scientific reading comprehension
> that you are not a scientist
Excellent post! Chew up the uglyass liar loser.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
> When you need to look up a post you made 10 years ago, Galathaea,
> which search engine do you use ? Yahoo ? with its flashy ads ?
>
> Who, other than Google, can calculate
> " 3.7 million * 2.95 km in AU = " ?
> Why do people shovel 11 gigadollars to Google every year ?
>
> Speaking of Google... Here's some screenshots,
> including what ( ad-free ) Google looks like to me:
>
> Images show full-size, not scaled down:www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Full_Size.PNGwww.Stat.OregonState.EDU/people/qu
jmfb...@aol.com
"galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <1176477429.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> "galathaea" <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Go do your work and stop wasting your time. Have you started
>> >> on the project that Dr. Carlip provided warning pointers?
>> >
>> >actually
>> > carlips point was full of shit
>> > and i answered him immediately
>>
>> I have been wasting my time. You are not able to identify experts
>> nor listen to their pointers.
>
>no
>
>you most certainly are not wasting your time
>
>you've put no time into your position at all
I have spent about an hour writing to you.
>
>you haven't read the literature
> or even the one paper that i took the time to post
> to discredit carlip's dismissal
Dr. Carlip expanded on his original post. But that doesn't
count, does it? It gave you pointers to be careful about certain
things. Even I, who are not familiar with the subject matter,
was able to understand that. Instead of doing your own work,
you want him to do it all and admire you for ordering him to do so.
>
>instead you have made it clear to anyone following the argument
> who has even a minimum scientific reading comprehension
>that you are not a scientist
I never claimed I was. I've not been talking about the particular
geometry matter. It was you who started claiming that it
was males' fault for you not getting into math.
>
>you are merely a toady
> that follows up anyone you have already given intellectual alpha
>status to
>and feels safe in defending their position without comprehension
Child, I was the alpha female. I don't have to toady to anybody.
>
>to make it easier for others to see your foolishness
>http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
>
>> >but i see
>> >
>> >your one of _those_
>> >
>> >who doesn't read and evaluate the facts for herself
>> >but just goto's authority
>>
>> You are just trolling.
>
>that's a great word for you to use
>
>it causes all the cognitive dissonance you need
> to avoid actually confronting any real science
>
>don't think i
> or any other lurkers with minimal logical ability
>do not realise you have stated nothing on the actual issue
I was talking about real life experience but you apparently
don't count that as fact.
>
>instead
> you like to sound more like a physical education coach
> barking your "get to work" orders left and right
>not realising
> because you do not want to realise
>the work was done before you ever came on the scene
It is your responsibility to do the work; not Dr. Carlip
nor anybody else.
>
>> >i didn't wait a couple of days to post the requested article
>> > i posted immediately after he asked
>> > after he claimed i was the one confused about the literature
>>
>> He didn't say that. He also explained further. I suspect he
>> had assumed that you had enough background to understand what
>> he wrote...but you do not.
>
>yeah
> he explained further that he really objected
> to anyone claiming that bohmian mechanics could give a theory
> of deterministic quantum field theory
You apparently have the wrong reading glasses. He didn't say that
at all.
>
>he also tried to pass off some of his knowledge on quantum gravity
> to explain why he was dismissive of the bohmian approach there
>and generally gave a lot of unrelated handwaving on why dismissing was
>valid
He was trying to help you. You have just spoiled all of your
future chances for getting help or discussions with anyone
who knows a lot about any subject matter.
>
>you
> give a lot of handwaving on why carlip is right
There wasn't any right or wrong about any of this. He gave
you pointers about what to be wary of. That is normal
behaviour for teachers. The fact that you wouldn't take the
help he gave demonstrates why you wouldn't have been successful
in advanced research studies.
> keeping your comments purposely vague in the same way he originally
>did
>because it is a classic method
> now common on usenet
>to appear knowledgeable about subjects
>you haven't yet found the right wikipedia page to support yourself on
Huh? What does wikipedia have to do with any of this?
>
>did i mention
>
>http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/37/44/L02/a4_44_l02.html
>
>?
>
>> >i didn't have to spend some time
>> > sifting through the literature to appear knowledgable
>> > and try to figure out the literaure
>>
>> So you don't think you have to do the work.
>
>again
> your purposefully bad reading comprehension
> does not score debate points
>and only illustrates your lack of substance
>
>i have already read that literature
> numerous times
>
>i keep filing cabinets full of papers at my home
> so i can organise the research to my own pursuits
>
>in fact
> looking over your entire message
>it is clear your message is much better suited
>for mister carlip and yourself
Most of my writing had to do with your incorrect assumption that
math is a male world. Of course, facts that contradict your
conclusion can't be allowed because you might have to reexamine
your assumptions.
>
>> >indeed my posting history on the topic
>> > already points to much of the literature
>> >
>> >and if you were to look at the article i posted
>> > you will also notice that it supports my idea
>> > that bohminisation and geometric quantisation
>> >are intimately connected
>> >
>> >the quantisation of discrete operators
>> > through projection on to a span of some configuration space
>> > with regions corresponding to discrete values
>> >is reproduced in the standard treatment
>> >in terms of polarisations
>> >
>> >so i get my job done
>> >
>> >is there a reason you don't read responses
>> > and simply spread and take it?
>>
>>
>> Here's a ton of Kleenix, kid.
>
>exactly
> and wherever substance is provided
> you look away
>
>avoidance mechanisms are a bitch
I happen to have a lot of experience that could have used. Alas,
I wasted my time.
/BAH
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
that it exposes. There may be a sexual differentiation but I would
rather consider the face value of the interactions without that
vector. There are some who do communicate here without chest banging.
There are few women on the groups that I post to or they are disguised
to be men.
If the behaviors that go on here in the open are buried
characteristics of the censored spaces then we are struck with the
actual quality of human interaction even at the scientific level.
According to some accounts Newton and his contemporaries battled over
the ownership of ideas, though on a recent PBS documentary of Newton
no such conflict was exposed. I am not versed enough in this history
to site specifics. The mental space of ideas is tightly connected with
ego. The desire for credit for one's ideas and the ability to credit
others' ideas is juxtaposed. The mingling of the two and the objective
word 'idea' seems to be an egocentric conception that may be fueling
some of the fire.
It is a fair assumption that all who post are either analyzing or
synthesizing ideas, yet when the content of posts is lacking we may be
witnessing the primal ego taking over. This is a mental illness of the
human race fully exposed. The physics community is caught exposing
itself. This voluntary subset may be marked with as many insiders as
outsiders but no matter how you slice it these individuals are sincere
in their physics interest and are real participants.
While the egocentric energy instigates low content emotional posts it
also indicts the ego and this may be beneficial in the long run. On
the one hand a heavy weighting of egocentric posts could diminish
certain groups such as sci.physics but on another hand the exposure of
such may benefit the community since all is in the open here and such
posters are inherently accountable.
Perhaps it is the modern academic system that is mostly to blame.
Where is the practice of expressing and analyzing new ideas practiced?
This is a frail space where the alphas are the professors and the
disagreeable student is a failure. Until the graduate level no such
freedom is granted and even then performance implies conformity.
Upon boarding the graduate ship has the student entered a near
militaristic system where autonomous decisions may be taken as
confrontational? Publication is the final hammer striking a supposed
progression that may actually be drivel. How many journals are there?
How many papers printed? How valuable is that process? Is journal
publication the end-all and be-all of the 'professional' class? This
is too harsh an attack but its consideration is meaningful especially
when access to the multitude of these holy censored journals is
limited. This is the existent culture that the internet has
intercepted. Changes will come and the freedom to be published to the
world in uncensored form in five minutes is utterly valuable. Mistakes
can be corrected without much consequence. Journalistic perfection is
less relevant under the new model.
Whatever causes the poor behavior the proper action is to improve the
quality of discussion in these groups. We want meaningful
conversations and to promote this implies an attempt at converting the
contentless, or should we call them the discontented?
The jab and the jabber
The jabberers that slobber
The sloberrer's foamy drool
The blow and the bloweror
The blower of the bubble
The bloweror's filmy pool
The blowers love their bubbles
The jabbers like the lather
What happens to the bubble's drool?
-Tim
Androcles
"Day Brown" <dayb...@hughes.net> wrote in message news:1176519693.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
[no physics content to respond to]
Go away, woolly woofter.
Alie...@gmail.com
> n...@bid.ness wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > i have regularly found
> > > that men tend to disbelieve me
> > > if i discuss something they are unfamiliar with
> [...]
> > > do other women find they continually have to justify themselves to
> > > men?
> > > is this a truly sexually dimorphic problem?
>
> > IMO associating the adversarial and cooperative mindsets with sexual
> > dimorphism is a mistake; they don't always correlate directly. There
> > does seem to have been some strong social selection pressure applied
> > as long as we've been "human" but it obviously hasn't worked or women
> > who are naturally adversarial wouldn't still regularly get called
> > 'dykes' and naturally cooperative men wouldn't get called 'pussies'.
(second try; Google groups lost my previous response)
> i agree that the sexes may not be the best level of granularity
>
> but they are a natural and scientific starting point
"Natural" in what sense?
> the effect is correlated in the direction of gender
If you'd said "has been claimed to be correlated with gender" I
would be much more agreeable. I am always suspicious of biases and
agendas.
> and gender is easily measurable
Is it though? Cooperative men are often called "feminized" and
aggressive women called "masculinized".
I believe those to be false correlations, but also the reverse; mean
are not automatically aggressive and women not automatically
cooperative.
> but i absolutely agree that
> given appropriate tests to distinguish the personality type
> that are distinct in scope from the tests to measure the effect
> we can make progress
That is simply not possible; the tests will be pre-biased by those
who write, administer, and evaluate them according to their individual
characteristics. Trying to do so by committee is worse; who decides
who sits on the committee and what are _their_ biases? Even assuming
completely unbiased tests could be written, who evaluates the results
for a given individual? In my experience IQ and personality tests are
valueless if the testee is smarter/more "well rounded" than the
tester.
I am not saying the whole concept is unworkable, I'm saying it's
always going to be a work-in-progress just as human societies are and
for the same reasons. What concerns me most in re: agendas is which
asymptote we're supposed to be approaching.
> aggression is regularly a consequence
> of sexual dimorphism in the hypothalamus during differentiation
> with all of its connections to the limbic processing
>
> in males
> testosterone affects this early development
> in ways different than testosterone-absent development
And the former is "normal" while the latter is "abnormal"? Who says
so?
> this one scientifically measurable process
> is at the root of a number of sexually dimorphic behaviors
> including eating disorders
> and other process oriented action schemas
> and their emotional base
Sigh. Are anorexic men "feminized"?
> should structure in the hypothalamus
> or the greater limbic
> be the desiderata here?
Neither. That's focusing on one small part of a complex self-
interacting system that's also strongly influenced by external
factors. FTM the limbic system acts AFAIK identically in men and women
given stimuli that drill down past the higher cortexes.
> > But consider what kind of person (not just men) does that sort of
> > name-calling. ;>)
>
> > Basically ISTM all this hoopla about alphas and betas is misapplied;
> > we see that sort of difference in many mammals and assume it applies
> > to us, but remember that alone among higher mammals humans do not go
> > into estrus; we have no evolutionary need to have either gender be "in
> > charge" all the time. I'm about three-quarters convinced that the
> > apparent statistical male-adversarial/female-cooperative correlation
> > we do see is a genetic holdover from when we did go into estrus.
>
> that does fit in with the neurological models
More importantly, it illustrates the bases of the sociological
interactions in social species. When most people think about social
primates they think "chimpanzee" or "gorilla", yet no other primate
but us could, or needed to, invent anything like democracy. We _had
to_ because our societies are not structurable according to gender
differences the way theirs are (even though it's taken us a few
thousand years to find that out). Do some research into the bonobo;
they've invented a unique method of smoothing social problems (that
wouldn't work for humans).
In the sense that we're discussing the mechanics of social
interaction driven by the participants' wetware, a technological
situation is the only possible remedy. When adversarial types try to
get you to put up a fight they're trying to recruit you to their way
of thinking, you see, but they do not take into account that you might
not be capable of doing so by reflex.
(Excuse me if this is a repetition of another post; Google keeps
losing them so I'm not sure what you might have already seen)
One defining characteristic of adversarials is that they don't
apologize; to them that has no value. Better to simply state where you
went wrong and state (or ask help in making) your plan to avoid future
mistakes. If you do that they'll usually fall all over themselves
trying to help you! Good example is the infamous Uncle Al; spout
stupidity and he'll call you on it loudly, but exhibit the least
interest in remedying it and he'll shovel information at you faster
than anyone could possibly handle. Understand that they _need_ not
only to challenge, but to _be_ challenged and will do their best to
elevate others to what they perceive as their level of competence
(whether objectively real or imagined) so they'll have somebody
available to challenge _them_. Try to see such behavior not as _wrong_
but merely as _different_.
This thread is xposted to several groups including
sci.physics.particle; consider people as complex entities (particles)
identifiable by how they interact with "similar" particles. While
electrons and quarks cannot change their observed charge or other
properties by themselves, we can. What's more, we can _practice_ being
what we'd like to be long enough that we _become_ what we've practiced
being.
I did not develop self-confidence because my testosterone level
changed at some point, I developed it (largely) because at one point
in my life I had it illustrated to me that others' perception of me
_is not_ determined by how I felt about myself internally but rather
by _their_ perceptions of my actions. Simply taking certain actions at
certain times proved adequate to change their perception of who I was;
I suddenly realized that others are manipulable. Since I don't
consider myself all that different from others I also realized _I_ was
being manipulated, and considered the possibility I could manipulate
my own behaviors. I observed the social interactions of those I
considered successful at it and started mimicking selected behaviors.
Guess what, it worked!
Yes, I know, it worked for me and won't necessarily be generally
applicable. But as I said I do not consider myself all that different
from others so the general principles ought to be generally
applicable.
Case in point; in my High School English class a rather rowdy jock
found himself caught up in drama because he got cast as Zeus in a play
and later wanted to explore "lesser" roles. Gentled him right down, it
did. For a while I wondered if he was just faking it; acting in the
literal sense, but one day he actually asked my help in interpreting a
role. At that time I was short, skinny, wore glasses and was nicknamed
"Poindexter". A real "wow" moment for all concerned.
> 5 year old girls
> in general - despite an occasional specific
> will not get what they need from such a program
If I were a professional psychologist I'd reflexively ask you what
awful thing happened to you at age five, but I'm not a psychologist;
I'm an engineer, Jim. ;>)
Seriously though, that is (in general) a particularly vulnerable
stage in the development of children of any "gender". I agree that it
should be considered essential to children's future well-being to be
very careful about what influences they're exposed to but are other
children "good" or "bad" influences? What happens if children are not
exposed to each other's foibles? Is there an emotional equivalent of
formal logic and games theory that children at that age could be
taught to prevent lifelong emotional crippling?
> it takes a lot of self-realisation
> that takes a number of years to develop
It can be, depending on what materials the child has to work with.
Obviously the generally available ones aren't adequate.
> aggression is strongest in childhood
> and must be handled before it becomes selective
Selective in what sense?
> i think it is much more an issue that there is a place for this
> aggressive conduct
> and that technological solutions for it may have better luck
> if they focus on extract the educational interaction at its root
>
> students do not need to interact competitively
How do you define "need"? Competitiveness is to one degree or
another built into all of us. The usual method of handling it is
frinst team sports. Players are taught to cooperate with team members
selflessly, but compete ruthlessly against other teams.
> in particular
> students do not need to even follow the same educational plan
> if we were to just move education online
>
> that simple step would break the stranglehold of mediocrity
> allowing the best instructional plans the widest audiences
> and would cost much less than modern infrastructure
We've already agreed on that much. What outlet would you propose for
their natural inclination to competitiveness? Competing with one's own
past achievements only goes so far.
> > > ( the guys can answer too
> > > if they promise to take a shower and brush their teeth )
>
> > Did you shave your legs and armpits before posting? Fair's fair.
>
> http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/242613.html
Cute, but rather strongly harks back to the 1960's. I thought that
was past.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Playing a prank, writing a fable, misdirecting, or lying? ;>)
Mark L. Fergerson
galathaea
nu...@bid.ness wrote:
> On Apr 14, 10:37 am, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > n...@bid.ness wrote:
|
> > > IMO associating the adversarial and cooperative mindsets with sexual
> > > dimorphism is a mistake; they don't always correlate directly. There
> > > does seem to have been some strong social selection pressure applied
> > > as long as we've been "human" but it obviously hasn't worked or women
> > > who are naturally adversarial wouldn't still regularly get called
> > > 'dykes' and naturally cooperative men wouldn't get called 'pussies'.
|
> >
> > but they are a natural and scientific starting point
>
> "Natural" in what sense?
natural in that it is one of the primary psychological correlates
used in modern studies
natural not in exclusive
but in quickly identified as a plane of correlated differentiation
if one is studying dynamics
and looking to measure and engineer health
one takes these more obvious markers
and looks for physical mechanism
gender differences are highly structure by the sexual hormone system
and its central nervous afferents and efferents
which are usually correlated to expression of the Y
it has been found that gender-biased traits are often tied to this
system
and this is somewhat correlated to studies on systems
where expression is suppressed (expression-damaged studies)
so gender expression is a valid start for any such search
as it gives leads into influences in the corresponding dynamics
> > the effect is correlated in the direction of gender
>
> If you'd said "has been claimed to be correlated with gender" I
> would be much more agreeable. I am always suspicious of biases and
> agendas.
correlation is not a boolean assertion
correlation only depends upon past observations
in a completely bayesian manner
correlation does not mean all women are two feet seven
and look like the ancient venus figurines
or other obvious absurdities
it is a measure over observed existents
not an assertion of universal design
correlation does not specify that there aren't better correlates
what if confidence in results is correlated to anterior cortex regions
associated to computation over recall likelihoods
and that this is strongly influenced by the estrogenic cycles
but that these are also very intricately related to other
neuromodular units
particularly long term potentiation learning
of internal dialogues and other premotor action schemas
so
although there is tendency
the vagueries of learned behaviors
ritualisation tendencies and other obsessions
the categorisation is heterogeneous though biased in gender
still the identification of any initial bias in gender
is valuable information in the search for mechanism
as estrogenically influenced systems are part of the natural
dimorphism
that should be investigated
> > and gender is easily measurable
>
> Is it though? Cooperative men are often called "feminized" and
> aggressive women called "masculinized".
>
> I believe those to be false correlations, but also the reverse; mean
> are not automatically aggressive and women not automatically
> cooperative.
i am trying to be very careful to make only existential claims here
not universals
alpha females exist
but they too
often have different mechanism than alpha males
with their own unique approach to dominance than male-type dominance
there is overlap of much neural processing between the sexes
but there are also sexual differences in neurodynamics
found in many of the architectonic modules
these are real deviations that can be measured
but it is also important to try to understand
how much of a difference is only due to subjugation
or other societal forces in opposition to gender egalitarianism
so it is interesting to see
that when gender egalitarian doctrines were made law
as when racial egalitarian doctrines were made law
and societal pressures slowly and piecemeal removed
gender computational performance quickly stabilised with male
but confidence correlations have not yet followed
many teams routinely measure "gender threat"
> > but i absolutely agree that
> > given appropriate tests to distinguish the personality type
> > that are distinct in scope from the tests to measure the effect
> > we can make progress
>
> That is simply not possible; the tests will be pre-biased by those
> who write, administer, and evaluate them according to their individual
> characteristics. Trying to do so by committee is worse; who decides
> who sits on the committee and what are _their_ biases? Even assuming
> completely unbiased tests could be written, who evaluates the results
> for a given individual? In my experience IQ and personality tests are
> valueless if the testee is smarter/more "well rounded" than the
> tester.
psychometrics have increased in accuracy
tremendously from the 60's or even 80's
with much influence from modern neuroarchitectonics
and modular modeling finding much success in neurology
the tests today are rigorously excluding
more and more contaminating factors of noise
trending to more and more specifically identify
the specific correlation that may indicate mechanism
and models of causality
ever since structuralism and functionalism met
object-oriented declarative languages of science have been all the
rage
and their ability to predict made that much easier
by the importance of reuse
> I am not saying the whole concept is unworkable, I'm saying it's
> always going to be a work-in-progress just as human societies are and
> for the same reasons. What concerns me most in re: agendas is which
> asymptote we're supposed to be approaching.
i think there are some simple programs that would assist
in breaking apart some of these more subjugating dynamics
i have mentioned online education elsewhere
which may be a technological solution
to all forms of aggressive subjugation
due to confidence dynamics in the face of aggressive challenges
independent of the gender question
> > aggression is regularly a consequence
> > of sexual dimorphism in the hypothalamus during differentiation
> > with all of its connections to the limbic processing
> >
> > in males
> > testosterone affects this early development
> > in ways different than testosterone-absent development
>
> And the former is "normal" while the latter is "abnormal"? Who says
> so?
there is some evidence that some transgenders
may have desired the transformation for structural reasons
associated to partial expression
there is no moral ought here except health
alpha aggression does suppress inquiry
and can turn some away from earnest inquiry
there should definitely be more education to the young
that this behavior exists
and should prepare them to pursue their earnest desires
without feelings of shame for the ignorance we are all born with
but the existence of such a dynamic
causes definite pathologies
it causes a predatory competitiveness among its participants
and causes some who are earnest and young
to become defensive
and develop avoidance mechanisms
which can kill the process of education completely
> > this one scientifically measurable process
> > is at the root of a number of sexually dimorphic behaviors
> > including eating disorders
> > and other process oriented action schemas
> > and their emotional base
>
> Sigh. Are anorexic men "feminized"?
no
but it is an indication of cause
anorexic men often have a damaged hypothalmus
or have developed obsessions that exhibit similar symptoms
> > should structure in the hypothalamus
> > or the greater limbic
> > be the desiderata here?
>
> Neither. That's focusing on one small part of a complex self-
> interacting system that's also strongly influenced by external
> factors. FTM the limbic system acts AFAIK identically in men and women
> given stimuli that drill down past the higher cortexes.
the limbic system has a number of neurohormonal receptors and glands
it is the primary loci of this communication system
and is strongly influenced by hormonal expression differences
found due to Y expression
> > > But consider what kind of person (not just men) does that sort of
> > > name-calling. ;>)
> >
> > > Basically ISTM all this hoopla about alphas and betas is misapplied;
> > > we see that sort of difference in many mammals and assume it applies
> > > to us, but remember that alone among higher mammals humans do not go
> > > into estrus; we have no evolutionary need to have either gender be "in
> > > charge" all the time. I'm about three-quarters convinced that the
> > > apparent statistical male-adversarial/female-cooperative correlation
> > > we do see is a genetic holdover from when we did go into estrus.
> >
> > that does fit in with the neurological models
>
> More importantly, it illustrates the bases of the sociological
> interactions in social species. When most people think about social
> primates they think "chimpanzee" or "gorilla", yet no other primate
> but us could, or needed to, invent anything like democracy. We _had
> to_ because our societies are not structurable according to gender
> differences the way theirs are (even though it's taken us a few
> thousand years to find that out). Do some research into the bonobo;
> they've invented a unique method of smoothing social problems (that
> wouldn't work for humans).
in human interaction
symbols hold more power than experience
meaning and semantics hold sway over
violence and force
this is because
unlike any other animal
we have gleaned the most technology
out of the seeming magic of prediction
that language games
provide advantage and strategy
for industrialising our desirous economy
( and its marginalist theory of value )
no other animals have realised this
to such an extent in their structures
it is not just the challenging
it is the subjugation that ensues
not the questions
but the exclusion and dismissal
i do not see this as wrong
i see it as unhealthy
because it excludes innovation from society
in the theory of health engineering
there are some early and immediate theories
that derive from very general engineering principles
one of these is that
excluding choices of action
can only decrease the health of the actions one may take
> This thread is xposted to several groups including
> sci.physics.particle; consider people as complex entities (particles)
> identifiable by how they interact with "similar" particles. While
> electrons and quarks cannot change their observed charge or other
> properties by themselves, we can. What's more, we can _practice_ being
> what we'd like to be long enough that we _become_ what we've practiced
> being.
long term potentiation
is the source of all learning
whether cognitive therapy
or fencing
or the theory of continued fractions
learning and practicing manipulations
regularly makes one better at them
> I did not develop self-confidence because my testosterone level
> changed at some point, I developed it (largely) because at one point
> in my life I had it illustrated to me that others' perception of me
> _is not_ determined by how I felt about myself internally but rather
> by _their_ perceptions of my actions. Simply taking certain actions at
> certain times proved adequate to change their perception of who I was;
> I suddenly realized that others are manipulable. Since I don't
> consider myself all that different from others I also realized _I_ was
> being manipulated, and considered the possibility I could manipulate
> my own behaviors. I observed the social interactions of those I
> considered successful at it and started mimicking selected behaviors.
> Guess what, it worked!
>
> Yes, I know, it worked for me and won't necessarily be generally
> applicable. But as I said I do not consider myself all that different
> from others so the general principles ought to be generally
> applicable.
i agree that yor strategy is a fair one
and have noticed similar response
but it is a strategy for point cases
that requires development
for each timid person involved in each incident
the development of an inner strength
sometimes very early on
i prefer
and believe there exist a number of
solutions that allow but do not require this self-development
because the aggression is not a necessary component of the education
or at a minimum
such an education can be controlled
and minimised to not intrude overly on other studies
> Case in point; in my High School English class a rather rowdy jock
> found himself caught up in drama because he got cast as Zeus in a play
> and later wanted to explore "lesser" roles. Gentled him right down, it
> did. For a while I wondered if he was just faking it; acting in the
> literal sense, but one day he actually asked my help in interpreting a
> role. At that time I was short, skinny, wore glasses and was nicknamed
> "Poindexter". A real "wow" moment for all concerned.
all requests for expansion and assistance are humbling
it is such a luxury when such request are answered unaggressively
> > 5 year old girls
> > in general - despite an occasional specific
> > will not get what they need from such a program
>
> If I were a professional psychologist I'd reflexively ask you what
> awful thing happened to you at age five, but I'm not a psychologist;
> I'm an engineer, Jim. ;>)
>
> Seriously though, that is (in general) a particularly vulnerable
> stage in the development of children of any "gender". I agree that it
> should be considered essential to children's future well-being to be
> very careful about what influences they're exposed to but are other
> children "good" or "bad" influences? What happens if children are not
> exposed to each other's foibles? Is there an emotional equivalent of
> formal logic and games theory that children at that age could be
> taught to prevent lifelong emotional crippling?
just a truthful and complete
theory of social interaction
can prepare a child
but they need the maturity to understand unstated goals
and the cleverness to identify them
this takes time
[...]
> > aggression is strongest in childhood
> > and must be handled before it becomes selective
>
> Selective in what sense?
in the important sense under consideration here
before it causes one to remove themselves
from an environment they consider too aggressive
in the sense of the experimental evidence
that self-chosen tests become more and more gender biased
as the choice moves later into development
with the likely implication
that there is some gender selection mechanism
earlier in the process prior to test self-selection
> > i think it is much more an issue that there is a place for this
> > aggressive conduct
> > and that technological solutions for it may have better luck
> > if they focus on extract the educational interaction at its root
> >
> > students do not need to interact competitively
>
> How do you define "need"? Competitiveness is to one degree or
> another built into all of us. The usual method of handling it is
> frinst team sports. Players are taught to cooperate with team members
> selflessly, but compete ruthlessly against other teams.
competition is most certainly a trait that must be taught
it is crucial to existence in our economy
and is a good indicator of fitness in other fields
however
knowledge qua knowledge should not require it for access
and science
if it is to truly be social-neutral
and experiment-driven
should never require aggressive competition
> > in particular
> > students do not need to even follow the same educational plan
> > if we were to just move education online
> >
> > that simple step would break the stranglehold of mediocrity
> > allowing the best instructional plans the widest audiences
> > and would cost much less than modern infrastructure
>
> We've already agreed on that much. What outlet would you propose for
> their natural inclination to competitiveness? Competing with one's own
> past achievements only goes so far.
i am not suggesting that
those who find competition stimulating
should not be allowed their competitions
but those who find it offsetting
need not be afflicted in the same stroke
individual environments tailored to individual needs is ideal
Rock Brentwood
> the way men and women handle such situations is very different
> and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
> that [sic] keeps women out of math and sciences
You need to get an update on your facts. It's *men* who are
progressively finding themselves locked out of science and math, not
women!
The Growing Prevalence of Women in Colleges - By Field
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Distribution.htm
As you can see, in most cases, it's a steady upward trend in nearly
every field (even Engineering). Comp Sci backtracked for a while, but
went back "on track". Math at the BS level is now nearing even 50-50
split. It the blip in the last year listed in the diagram is nothing
more than a blip, it will probably cross over.
In other countries, it has. Russia, for instance, has long had female
majorities amongst science majors. The Gulf states have HUGE female
majorities amongst science majors (up to 70-80%!) ... along with the
rest of the college-level population (even Saudi Arabia's colleges
have a 60% female student population, the science majors female-
majority) That's just to name a few of the more extreme cases. Some
places in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of estrogen (e.g. Virgin
Islands, which the last time I checked had female majorities in every
single major including Engineering; the Turks and Caicos Islands, a
couple years on recent record in the UNESCO database had a 100% female
college-level student population, though small).
The trend is ongoing worldwide and generally in the same direction
(women in, men out).
In time I'll put up graphics showing how the situation is developing
worldwide.
Remember the Harvard professor who (still stuck in the 1960's thinking
it was the 1960's and not aware of the current situation) proclaimed
women's "inability" to get into the sciences? Well, even Harvard now
has a woman at its head. Take a look at the female-male ratio in the
charts for the Education major, by the way. That's where future
teachers and administrators come out of. Even in the Arab world, even
in the most "patriarchal" of nations where women can't even vote, you
may find a woman running the ministry of Education.
galathaea
> On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > the way men and women handle such situations is very different
> > and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
> > that [sic] keeps women out of math and sciences
>
> You need to get an update on your facts. It's *men* who are
> progressively finding themselves locked out of science and math, not
> women!
>
> The Growing Prevalence of Women in Colleges - By Field
> http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Distribution.htm
when you first posted this
i became extremely confused
all of the most recent data
both from government sponsored censuses
to private polls and other studies
still show major skews in the gender distribution
for mathematics and the sciences
but after rereading the article you posted
and looking at its own stated data
i see that it is mostly the tone and focus of the article
and not the data
that appears slanted
yes
there does appear to be movement in the right direction
which has been a trend accelerated by the greater acceptance
of the working female in american society
it is a trend going back decades
and is an indication that biasing is skewed
due to societal and/or legal subjugations
that prevented such self-realisation
the listed data clearly shows
2003 female PhD graduation levels in
engineering and engineering technology - 17.2%
computer and information science - 20.6%
physical science and science technology - 27.6%
mathematics and statistics - 27.1%
in all categories
even the ones with female proportional dominance
there is still a definite trend
indicating self-selection from higher educational degrees
> As you can see, in most cases, it's a steady upward trend in nearly
> every field (even Engineering). Comp Sci backtracked for a while, but
> went back "on track". Math at the BS level is now nearing even 50-50
> split. It the blip in the last year listed in the diagram is nothing
> more than a blip, it will probably cross over.
>
> In other countries, it has. Russia, for instance, has long had female
> majorities amongst science majors. The Gulf states have HUGE female
> majorities amongst science majors (up to 70-80%!) ... along with the
> rest of the college-level population (even Saudi Arabia's colleges
> have a 60% female student population, the science majors female-
> majority) That's just to name a few of the more extreme cases. Some
> places in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of estrogen (e.g. Virgin
> Islands, which the last time I checked had female majorities in every
> single major including Engineering; the Turks and Caicos Islands, a
> couple years on recent record in the UNESCO database had a 100% female
> college-level student population, though small).
>
> The trend is ongoing worldwide and generally in the same direction
> (women in, men out).
in what way do you believe exclusive forces are being applied to men
are there social taboos about men entering higher education?
are they unable to achieve entrance to any college?
> In time I'll put up graphics showing how the situation is developing
> worldwide.
i would be very interested in that
[...]
jmfb...@aol.com
galathaea <gala...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 4:52 pm, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the way men and women handle such situations is very different
>> > and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
>> > that [sic] keeps women out of math and sciences
I'll tell you why the percentages of females are rising.
Boys, at an early age, are being taught that they are
too stupid to do math and science. As a result, they
will redirect their efforts elsewhere when they grow up.
In their zeal to prove that girls can do math, female(mostly)
teachers are dumbing down the boys so that the girls look
like they do math better. This is happening in elementary
schools. I haven't yet heard of it happening in high schools,
but it will.
Now, before you complain, think about all the talent that
isn't getting into the PhD programs because of societal
pressure that teaches males they aren't capable of doing
certain kinds of thinking.
Those PhD programs are not getting the best and brightest.
They are getting the mundane.
/BAH
nons...@unsettled.com
snip
> In their zeal to prove that girls can do math, female(mostly)
> teachers are dumbing down the boys so that the girls look
> like they do math better. This is happening in elementary
> schools. I haven't yet heard of it happening in high schools,
> but it will.
Take a look at the recent Virgina massacre through this
prism.
Kids in western civilized nations have been being taught
passivity, for generations, as the correct response to
aggression.
In a room with more than 31 people in it, they stood
around and allowed themselves to be killed one by one.
It appears, from all I've heard to date, that *nobody*
attacked the killer. Nobody had the nerve to stand up
to him. Nobody decided to rush the guy. I suppose they
were waiting for a teacher to come along and take care
of the problem for them, as they'd been taught to do
since kindergarten.
That overlong "jihad" thread that finished not so long
ago demonstrated the mindset of the bulk of the people,
most of whom are sheep. This has been taught, with an
every growing emphasis, to every generation going
through western schools since the end of WW2.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Apr 11, 2:25 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the way men and women handle such situations is very different
>> and i suspect that this is one of the larger selection criteria
>> that [sic] keeps women out of math and sciences
> You need to get an update on your facts. It's *men* who are
> progressively finding themselves locked out of science and math, not
> women!
> The Growing Prevalence of Women in Colleges - By Field
> http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/FallOfMankind/Distribution.htm
> As you can see, in most cases, it's a steady upward trend in nearly
> every field (even Engineering). Comp Sci backtracked for a while, but
> went back "on track". Math at the BS level is now nearing even 50-50
> split. It the blip in the last year listed in the diagram is nothing
> more than a blip, it will probably cross over.
The figures in the Web site you refer to are lumped in a way that
makes them difficult to interpret. For some fields, much more
detailed statistics are available, and the picture is quite different.
In physics, for example, you can find a detailed analysis, by the
American Institute of Physics, at
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/gendertrends.html
At the high school level, boys and girls take physics classes in roughly
equal numbers, but boys are more likely to take more advanced classes.
Only about 25% of the high school students who take the calculus-based
AP physics exam are girls. There is, indeed, an increase in the percentage
of physics BAs and Ph.D.s going to women, but the numbers are still small.
Women earn about 22% of the bachelor's degrees; about 21% of entering
graduate students in physics are women; and women earn about 18% of the
Ph.D.s in physics. Internationally, the American Institute of Physics
could find reliable bachelor's degree statistics for 19 countries; the
percentage of degrees going to women varied from 9% (Switzerland and
Germany) to 39% (Turkey), with an average of 24%.
The proportion of faculty positions in physics held by women is increasing
-- from 6% in 1994 to 10% in 2003. In 2002, about half of all physics
departments in the U.S. had no female faculty members. There seems to
be good evidence that the number of women in faculty positions reflects
the number of women who had Ph.D.s at the time the positions were filled
-- the big "leak" comes between high school and college -- so maybe in
another 15-20 years the number of female physics faculty members might be
up to 20% or so...
This is not what I would describe as "men...progressively finding themselves
locked out."
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> On Apr 12, 9:32 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> In sci.physics galathaea <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> you claimed that i was wrong about deterministic bohminisations of qft
> so i responded with a link to one of the several such results
> i am aware of
> as with ilya's point long ago
> you left the discussion after that
> now you are claiming you still have objections?
> was there something wrong with the formalism of the paper i linked?
The paper you linked does not deal with interacting quantum field theory.
I have posted my critique in the original thread (at sci.physics.particle);
I don't think it's a good idea to split a somewhat technical discussion
between two threads, going to two different sets of newsgroups.
Steve Carlip
jmfb...@aol.com
"nons...@unsettled.com" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> In their zeal to prove that girls can do math, female(mostly)
>> teachers are dumbing down the boys so that the girls look
>> like they do math better. This is happening in elementary
>> schools. I haven't yet heard of it happening in high schools,
>> but it will.
>
>Take a look at the recent Virgina massacre through this
>prism.
>
>Kids in western civilized nations have been being taught
>passivity, for generations, as the correct response to
>aggression.
>
>In a room with more than 31 people in it, they stood
>around and allowed themselves to be killed one by one.
>It appears, from all I've heard to date, that *nobody*
>attacked the killer. Nobody had the nerve to stand up
>to him. Nobody decided to rush the guy. I suppose they
>were waiting for a teacher to come along and take care
>of the problem for them, as they'd been taught to do
>since kindergarten.
I heard of two who blocked the door so he couldn't come in.
One was a female who had already been shot and the other was
a male in the next room after he heard the shots. You're right;
it's not a good percentage. I keep thinking that this has
to do with not learning how to work and solve one's own problems.
>
>That overlong "jihad" thread that finished not so long
>ago demonstrated the mindset of the bulk of the people,
>most of whom are sheep. This has been taught, with an
>every growing emphasis, to every generation going
>through western schools since the end of WW2.
This one also has to do with equal rights where people who
are a danger to society cannot be commited without their
permission. Even in my workplace, managers didn't deal
with a personnel problem until it had become a crisis. A
female manager told me that this delay was how males dealt
with problems. I'm still not sure it's a sexual difference.
I don't understand why the guy didn't get canned...or whatever
you call it when you kick somebody out of school. This wasn't
kindergarten where teachers have to put up with bad behaviour.
/BAH
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
This wasn't a student. This was a 70+ years old professor.
> You're right;
>it's not a good percentage. I keep thinking that this has
>to do with not learning how to work and solve one's own problems.
>
Worse than this. It is not "not learning how to solve one's problems"
but learning that "the authorities are there to solve you problems".
The passivity is not an unintended effect of the educational approach
but a wholly intended one.
>>
>>That overlong "jihad" thread that finished not so long
>>ago demonstrated the mindset of the bulk of the people,
>>most of whom are sheep. This has been taught, with an
>>every growing emphasis, to every generation going
>>through western schools since the end of WW2.
>
>This one also has to do with equal rights where people who
>are a danger to society cannot be commited without their
>permission. Even in my workplace, managers didn't deal
>with a personnel problem until it had become a crisis. A
>female manager told me that this delay was how males dealt
>with problems. I'm still not sure it's a sexual difference.
>
It is not.
>I don't understand why the guy didn't get canned...or whatever
>you call it when you kick somebody out of school. This wasn't
>kindergarten where teachers have to put up with bad behaviour.
>
Of course you understand it, you wrote it above. "Rights" and the
like. Everybody has rights, nobody has obligations.
galathaea
> In article <f0cn50$8qk_...@s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> jmfbah...@aol.com writes:
|
> >This one also has to do with equal rights where people who
> >are a danger to society cannot be commited without their
> >permission. Even in my workplace, managers didn't deal
> >with a personnel problem until it had become a crisis. A
> >female manager told me that this delay was how males dealt
> >with problems. I'm still not sure it's a sexual difference.
>
> It is not.
what is the percentage of murders
at places of learning
committed by females?
what is the percentage of murders committed by females?
murders of people unknown to the assailant?
i can give answers if you do not know
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea
wrote:
it is a very strange prism indeed
to view this chorus of blame-the-victims
this chorus of
" after a massacre of this proportions
we are obviously living in a society
with too little aggression and violence "
the sheep are more often the conservative
the followers and toadies
unable to think for themselves
look to traditional authority
defense should be taught at a young age
but a mental health defense
one that avoids shutdown mechanisms
fetal position self-miseries
in physically challenging situations
or insidious exploitations by mental aggressors
in situations that require careful thought
how to think for oneself
and not be afraid of new information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Apr 21, 12:24 pm, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <f0cn50$8qk_...@s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
>> jmfbah...@aol.com writes:
>|
>> >are a danger to society cannot be commited without their
>> >permission. Even in my workplace, managers didn't deal
>> >with a personnel problem until it had become a crisis. A
>> >female manager told me that this delay was how males dealt
>> >with problems. I'm still not sure it's a sexual difference.
>>
>> It is not.
>
> at places of learning
>committed by females?
>
>what is the percentage of murders committed by females?
>murders of people unknown to the assailant?
>
>i can give answers if you do not know
>
benefit, here is again the original statement and comment
>> > ... managers didn't deal
>> >with a personnel problem until it had become a crisis. A
>> >female manager told me that this delay was how males dealt
>> >with problems. I'm still not sure it's a sexual difference.
>>
>> It is not.
Your questions have to do with this what, exactly?